I have a new piece up at Hudson New York today.  It's called "The Ultimate Weapon."  For those interested, it's here.

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 8,  2009

WHO THE HELL DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS? - AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  This is a classic example of what happens when a president comes off as weak:

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President Barack Obama faces “more than an embarrassment” should his nation fail to lead international negotiations to complete a new climate-protection treaty by December, a senior European climate negotiator said.

Obama’s scope is limited because the U.S. Congress may not approve a domestic law to control emissions before the December deadline for signing an international climate accord in Copenhagen, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Union’s executive body, said in an interview.

“Obama and his administration are very committed, and it will be more than an embarrassment for them if at Copenhagen they would have to admit they are not ready,” Falkenberg said late last night in Bangkok, where more than 180 nations are meeting for talks. “We can just help, but helping them also means directly telling them that the world has an expectation.”

COMMENT:  I don't think Americans should take kindly to threats.  This little enviro-jerk has to be put in his place.  The State Department should make clear that his finger-shaking is not welcome, and, as they say in diplomacy, is "not helpful." 

But there'll be no American reply.  Since Obama took office, we've become a willing punching bag.  We must "understand" how others feel.

Right.  And they should be made to understand how we feel.

Americans may soon start yearning for George W. Bush.

October 8, 2009   Permalink

SOME FAVORABLE POLITICAL NEWS - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  Virginia elects a new governor next weeks, and the winds favor the Republican candidate.  The race may - and may is always the operative word - have significant political meaning, as the Washington Post points out:

The latest Washington Post poll of the Virginia gubernatorial race represents more than bad news for Democratic nominee R. Creigh Deeds. The findings paint a portrait of the electorate that, if replicated elsewhere, stands as a warning sign for President Obama and Democrats who will be running in next year's midterm elections.

Oh, make it true, make it true.

The new poll shows a lack of enthusiasm among many of the voters who propelled Obama and his party to victory last November, raising troubling questions for the Democrats: Were many of Obama's 2008 energetic supporters one-time participants in the political process who care little about other races? Is Obama's current agenda turning off some voters who backed him last year but now may be looking elsewhere?

And...

Four findings in the poll speak to potentially critical shifts among Obama's coalition jump out of the new poll.

First, just half of the people who say they voted for Obama last November in Virginia say they are certain to vote in the gubernatorial election. That compares with two-thirds of those who say they backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Second, there is a lack of energy in the African American community...

...Third is an even sharper falloff in interest among younger voters.

There is a traditional rule of thumb in electoral politics:  Never depend on young voters.  Screaming and yelling rarely translates into votes:

Fourth, the intensity gap between Democrats and Republicans has done a complete reversal.

Republicans are now more enthusiastic.  At least the voters are.  Sometimes we have to wake up the leaders.

...all Democrats have a stake in trying to show that the electorate that put Obama in the White House was more than a one-time phenomenon built around his personality. How much Obama can help to reenergize that electorate is a question that is likely to linger well past the results in Virginia next month.

COMMENT:  The start of the GOP comeback will likely be seen in "purple" states like Virginia, rather than the traditional "blue" states, the Dem states.  Republicans thought they had a shot at the governorship of New Jersey, but miserably unpopular incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine, has surged recently, and may squeak by to reelection.  New Jersey is always one of those states that arouses GOP hopes, but almost inevitably stays with the Dems.

Remember, the 2010 midterms, the most critical midterms in recent political history, are only 13 months away.  Not too early to register and send checks.  Major combat coming up.

October 8, 2009   Permalink 

FOOLISH MOVE - AT 6:38 P.M. ET:  The Obama administration is taking on Fox News, which is really silly.  Aren't the Obamans satisfied with having the overwhelming majority of news outlets with them, with some acting practically as subdivisions?  Going after Fox looks small and silly.  The Politico reports:

Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”

"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."

COMMENT:  Fox is right.  I have no problem with the White House replying to things it believes are unfair.  But singling out Fox means singling out one of the most popular news outlets in the country.  Yes, Fox tilts somewhat to the right, especially in its punditry, but its news reports are fair, and within reasonable bounds.  It gives plenty of time for liberals to have their say.

Looks minor league. 

October 8, 2009   Permalink 

AFGHANISTAN "STRATEGY" SESSIONS - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's father, also a general, gave his son some wise advice:  "Councils of war breed defeatism." 

That's what I'm worried about as I read all these stories about endless discussions over Afghanistan, with more and more "analysis."  Discussion is fine, but when you start to over-intellectualize a problem, you start to magnify the obstacles and minimize your advantages.  In business schools they call it "paralysis by analysis." 

WASHINGTON -- Recognizing the U.S. can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation, President Barack Obama's war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.

Obama's national security team marked the war's eighth anniversary on Wednesday with a three-hour session in a secure room in the White House basement. The focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of Usama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.

Members of the president's national security team argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S., officials told The New York Times. It was unclear if everyone in the war council accepted the premise.

COMMENT:  The part about the Taliban really disturbs me.  It isn't that the Taliban directly threaten the U.S.  It's that the Taliban, in the past, formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and gave it haven.  If the Taliban regains control, that could easily happen again, and we would have no stomach to try to stop it.

There's something else.  The Taliban were beastly, and their treatment of women unspeakable.  Are we going to abandon the people of Afghanistan to that fate again, after trying to protect them?  There is not only an issue of honor here.  There's an issue of our credibility. 

We abandoned the Vietnamese in 1975, to satisfy the gloating liberal wing of the Democratic Party and a media that had settled on a losing "narrative" that later turned out to be inaccurate.  Are we going to do that again?   Our retreat from Vietnam cost us dearly in credibility, with repair coming only with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  I don't see a Reagan on the horizon. 

October 8, 2009   Permalink

JOURNALISTIC SLANTS - AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The New York Times gives a whitewashed report on the finding by the Congressional Budget Office that the health "reform" plan under consideration will actually save money:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee legislation to revamp the health care system would provide coverage to 29 million uninsured Americans but would still pare future federal deficits by slowing the growth of spending on medical care, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The much-anticipated cost analysis showed the bill meeting President Obama’s main requirements, including his demand that health legislation not add “one dime to the deficit.” Indeed, the budget office said, the bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion in the decade starting next year.

Wow!  What a great bill!  I'm cured, I'm cured!

You have to dig deeper into the story, beyond the liberal Democratic advertisement in the first two paragraphs, to realize that this "analysis" is smoke and mirrors all the way.  A real analysis goes through the legislative language of a bill, the fine print, where the money really is spent.  But that language wasn't even presented to the CBO.

And coverage?  Don't make us laugh.  Dig way, way down in the story and learn that there are loopholes large enough to drive a politically correct hybrid vehicle through:

Republicans were not impressed by the new numbers. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said: “The bill spends nearly $1 trillion and still leaves 25 million people without health insurance. That’s not much bang for the buck.”

That's right.  Some 25 million still uninsured.

And hospitals are furious:

“They have not yet met the standard of our deal,” said Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group.

But the CBO "report" will provide cover for on-the-fence Democrats and maybe one or two Republicans, like Olympia Snowe of Maine. 

There's a battle ahead.  We need more town meetings and public gatherings to stop this train wreck.

October 8, 2009   Permalink

ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  From the Jerusalem Post:

The CIA was aware of Iran's 'secret' nuclear plant in Qom already in 2006, and European and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the facility to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the US intelligence agency's director, Leon Panetta, revealed in an interview with Time magazine published overnight Wednesday.

The Islamic republic recently revealed that it had been secretly constructing a new uranium enrichment plant inside a mountain just north of the holy city of Qom, and has agreed to discuss future international inspection of the facility.

"It was built into a mountain; obviously that raised question marks," Panetta reportedly said of the site, located some 100 kilometers south of Teheran. The CIA director revealed that he learned of the facility after he was confirmed as head of the agency in January, and said the US spent months on efforts to gather more intelligence on the facility, including "conducting covert operations into that area."

British, French and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the Qom site that was prepared "in the event that that information leaked out or that [the Obama Administration] wanted to present it to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Panetta added.

COMMENT:  But the American people were told in a National Intelligence Estimate published in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a weapons program back in 2003.  That NIE took much of the wind out of the campaign to confront Iran.  And yet, we knew of the secret facility a year earlier.

That NIE should be the subject of a major congressional investigation.  We must determine whether a group of intelligence operatives, with political motives, slanted the report to advance its own policies.

There won't be an investigation.  The story apparently is that those who guided the NIE leaned left.  A Democratic congress will never investigate, which is part of a continuing tragedy.

We are talking about nuclear weapons, about survival.  We're so casual about it.

October 8, 2009    Permalink

GET READY, THEY'RE COMING - AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Taxes, I mean.  The Wall Street Journal, one of the few news outlets that actually understands the economy, editorializes this morning on the new push for a Value Added Tax, to pay for the "programs" that we all asked for in the last election.  You remember asking for all these programs, don't you?

Candor about taxes is rare in Washington, so when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats may have to impose a huge new tax on the middle class to fund their spending ambitions, believe her.

Speaking with PBS's Charlie Rose on Monday, Mrs. Pelosi mused publicly about the rising possibility of enacting a value-added tax, or VAT, as part of broader tax reform. "Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this," she said. "Of course, we want to take down the health-care cost, that's one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value-added tax as well."

I love it, I love it.  We want to "take down the health-care cost," at a time when the Medicare rolls will swell with baby boomers.  The only way they'll "take down" that cost is by cutting care, especially for those unattractive oldies who get more conservative as they age.  Who needs 'em?

The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills. Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it's foolish to think the U.S. will be different.

But, of course, we're not being told the truth by the president.  He knows the score, but will blame any economic crisis on BUSH (!!). 

The way this crowd will impose taxes is obvious.  First, they'll establish social programs, with no means to pay for them.  Then they'll declare that the government needs money for these "popular services."  Having made a chunk of the population dependent on the services, they have a built-in constituency to raise taxes to pay for them, especially if the taxes are hidden, or paid for by someone other than the person receiving the services. 

The bills for the Democratic spending blowout are coming due even sooner than advertised, and the middle class will pay, whatever Mr. Obama's campaign promises.

COMMENT:  And this will come as we're trying to rebuild the economy.  Tax a weak economy.  What a concept!

We're on our way to becoming Europe, which has always been the dream of the intellectual elites who control the Democratic Party.  They go to Europe, party with their friends, get briefed by socialist professors, and think they're seeing reality.

And please contemplate what all this will do to national defense.  Where do you think the first cuts will come from?  Get ready for all the talk about the "industrial-military" complex and BUSH'S (!!) wars. 

The only way this looming catastrophe can be avoided is for conservatives to badly dent the liberal forces in the 2010 elections.  Can it be done?  Yes, with enormous effort, solid candidates (not just the guy who's next in line) and a savvy communications strategy that will talk over the heads of the talking heads.

October 8, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER 7,  2009

IS THIS IN VAIN? - AT 11:02 P.M. ET:  Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, believes that the health-care debate is going the GOP's way.  The question is, if the Democrats have the votes, will public opinion matter?

Passing health-care reform could be harmful to the health of congressional Democrats.

Just look at how President Barack Obama's standing has fallen as he has pushed for reform. According to Fox News surveys, the number of independents who oppose health-care reform hit 57% at the end of September, up from 33% in July. Independents are generally a quarter of the vote in off-year congressional elections.

And...

Among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% in last month's Economist/YouGov Poll. But the number from that poll that should spook Democrats is this: 47% of seniors said they "strongly" oppose health-care reform, just 27% "strongly" support it. Seniors are the biggest consumers of health care, and their family members will probably take their concerns seriously. Seniors will likely cast about 20% of the votes next year.

What are the political implications?

In 2006, the year the GOP lost control of Congress, Democrats enjoyed a double-digit lead in several "generic ballot" polls—a measure of voters' party preference. Democrats held that lead until this year. Today, Gallup's generic ballot shows Democrats have a razor thin 46% to 44% edge. According to Gallop's numbers, independents now favor Republicans by nine points.

Here's something we didn't know:

The numbers may get worse for Democrats if they pass a health-care bill. Why? Because Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) wants to frontload the reforms with distasteful things. Under his plan, tax hikes and Medicare and Medicaid cuts kick in immediately, while new benefits are delayed for two-and-a-half years. Voters likely won't warm to reforms that slam them next year while promising benefits down the road.

Rove's conclusion:

This battle is far from over. But what Democrats have to keep in mind is that there are two fights going on here—one over health care and another over which party will control Congress after next year's elections. By waging the first, they may be setting themselves up to lose the second.

COMMENT:  Okay, I'll buy part of that.  One of the problems is that reporting on the health-care plan will be filtered through the mainstream media, which will do everything it can to paint a happy face on the inept plan.

The political impact will really be felt if people see their health-care benefits cut next year, or find that their doctors no longer take Medicare, or see their health premiums rise.  Then there could be a revolt.

But revolts have to be managed, and require leaders.  There are reports this evening that some Republicans in the Senate are ready to cave in on the public option.  Some may even vote for the president's plan.  If Obama can portray the plan as "bipartisan," the GOP argument is cut to shreds immediately.

This is a time for Republican maneuvering and political craftsmanship.  Oh wait.  It's the Republican Party.  Maybe I should scale back my demands.

Big battles ahead.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

QUIET!  HE IS THINKING, HE IS CONTEMPLATING - AT 7:51 P.M. ET:  And who are we, mere citizens, to question him?

The president had another Afghanistan meeting today:

WASHINGTON - President Obama met with his war council Wednesday for another strategy session after receiving a widely anticipated troop request for Afghanistan .

The session followed a meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders that at times was contentious, including a pointed exchange with Sen. John McCain over the pace of deliberations.

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is seeking up to 40,000 additional troops but some of the president's war advisers along with some key Democrats are wary of escalating the war.

Obama received McChrystal's troop request from Defense Secretary Robert Gates last Thursday before he flew to Copenhagen for a failed bid to have Chicago host the 2016 Olympics.

And the White House, perhaps reflecting its general level of casualness surrounding issues of war and peace, issued this nutty statement:

Yet White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Obama wants to get the strategy right first before deciding on the troop request.

Didn't they announce a new strategy just months ago?  You get the feeling that this is about pressure from the left wing of the Democratic Party, not about strategy.

"One has to get a strategy that works, a strategy that has confidence of everyone involved, then get the resources," he said.

Huh?  Get the confidence of everyone involved?  Is the man serious?  How is it possible to have unanimity when Joe Biden wants a reduction of forces and the military wants 40,000 more troops.  Again, a lack of seriousness.

"The president is determined not to do this backwards. ... Once and for all after eight years, we're going to get this right."

Naturally, the mention of "eight years."  Blame Bush.  Blame everything on Bush.  Obama has been president for nine months, and doesn't yet have a strategy in something he called a "war of necessity."  But blame Bush.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

MORE INDOCTRINATION - AT 7:35 P.M. ET:  CNN brought to its studio a group of school kids to sing the praises of health-care reform, and, not incidentally, Barack Obama.  The video is here.

This, of course, comes after recent revelations of kids in New Jersey and elsewhere being forced to sing songs of praise for The One.

One disturbing element is that, so far, the incidents have occurred in predominantly African-American school districts.  Now, as we've said before, it's entirely understandable for people to feel pride when a member of their group becomes president.  That's normal.  We'd all feel it.  But indoctrinating children is something else, and is unacceptable in a democracy.

One of the tragedies of the civil-rights movement, which has had many fine moments, is that it has always been influenced by the far left, and by a "leader first" mentality.  Too often we have seen marches, rallies, and events in which leaders, not people, seemed to be the most important figures.  I'm afraid we're seeing that effect in these indoctrination attempts.  They're consistent with a kind of totalitarian mentality common on the far left (and far right).  It must be exposed, and stopped.

October 7, 2009   Permalink   

SARAH IN ACTION - AT 7:10 P.M. ET:  It's not being reported widely by the mainstream media - I wonder why - but Sarah Palin has become very active in issuing policy statements.  They're well written and well argued, and it's clear that she's trying to build a public record on national and international affairs.  Of course, her book comes out next month, so the statements dovetail well with the expected book tour. 

On Afghanistan she says:

Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision -- it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  Great, fine.  We look forward to her book.  If it's a serious book, well written and well argued, it can give Sarah a new platform, although the usual suspects will be right there to tear her down.  Already, Reuters made a headline out of a recent gaffe in which she called Afghanistan "our neighboring country."  She probably meant to say "our allied country," or some such.  When Obama makes gaffes like that, they're covered up.

At some point, Sarah will have to answer questions from the press.  I suspect she'll have to do that when the book comes out, and she appears on TV.  That will be a clear test for her.  I am optimistic.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

BACK HOME AGAIN IN ILLINOIS - AT 10:32 A.M. ET:  Illinois is the gift that keeps on giving, an endless source of news about bad government, shady politics, and a president who didn't get the Olympic games for Chicago.

And now, money woes:

CHICAGO (CBS) — The State of Illinois' pile of unpaid bills has grown to a record-breaking $3 billion. Comptroller Dan Hynes said Tuesday it's never before been this bad at this point in any previous fiscal year. CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports that some social service agencies that rely heavily on state reimbursement warn they will soon be forced out of business.

Hynes said that things are likely to get worse before the state's bleak revenue picture begins to improve.

The comptroller reported corporate income tax receipts down $77 million for July through September; sales tax receipts, down $244 million; personal income tax receipts, down $251 million.

COMMENT:  Oh, come on.  With the Daley machine in Chicago, and Roland Burris in the Senate, and no need to spend cash on Olympic stadiums, how bad can it be?  After all, The One is in the White House, and he will deliver for Illinois the way he did in Copenhagen last week.

Oh, by the way, if Illinois had gotten the Olympics, where would the money come from to build all that necessary stuff?  Interesting that this financial report came out after the decision was announced.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

GOVERNMENT BY MOVIE - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  One of Obama's big headaches on Afghanistan is the hard left of his party, represented, in particular, by the Congressional Black Caucus and by something called the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a code name for people who still have Che Guevara posters on their unpainted bedroom walls.

Donna Edwards, an African-American congresswoman from Maryland, is emerging as one of the new leaders of the "progressives."  She earned her spurs by an anti-Israel vote earlier this year, which quickly got her noticed by the Lenin's Tomb guards.

The Washington Examiner reports the leftist plans on Afghanistan:

Democratic Rep. Donna Edwards, a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, attended the premiere of the anti-war film, "Rethink Afghanistan" in Washington last night. In remarks afterward, Edwards quoted a House colleague, whom she did not identify, saying anti-war Democrats must work to rescue President Obama from his commitment to escalate the war in Afghanistan. "As one of my colleagues, who shall remain unnamed, said, 'Indeed, we may have to save this president from himself on Afghanistan,'" Edwards told the audience. "I take that really seriously."

I'm sure she takes it seriously.  Edwards represents a faction that is opposed to all American military action, especially any that would lead to victory.  We know what these people are, but say it loud and clear and you'll be accused of "McCarthyism."

If Obama ultimately decides to send more troops to Afghanistan, Edwards suggested that a large number of majority Democrats will abandon him when it comes time to vote for extended funding of the war. "In order to go forward to continue the funding," she said, "it is going to be largely, I think, a Republican vote that would stand with the president, if that's the decision that he makes."

COMMENT:  What an indictment of the Democratic Party.  But in the mind of Donna Edwards and her crowd, it's a high compliment.  This used to be the party of FDR, Truman and Jack Kennedy.  Now it's the party of Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich and Donna Edwards. 

October 7, 2009   Permalink

WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW? - AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Related to the story just below, how much do we actually know about the Iranian nuclear program?  A story in a London-based Arab newspaper reports that there have been defections from the program:

Two Iranian nuclear scientists disappeared over the past weeks and allegedly defected to the West, the London-based pan-Arabic daily Asharq al-Awsat reported.

According to the report, the first defector is Sharam Amiri, a scientist in Iran's nuclear program who was likely tied to the recently discovered secret uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom.

Amiri disappeared in Saudi Arabia in July while he was on the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.

And...

The report regarding the second scientist is also strange. Asharq al-Awsat uses only his surname - Ardebili. He was allegedly arrested in Georgia a few weeks ago. Reports say that Ardebili worked in the Iranian nuclear program as well, but the Iranian foreign ministry fervently denies these claims, and maintains that Ardebili was a businessman who was extradited to the U.S. following his arrest.

The conclusion:

If the report is correct and two scientists from Iran's nuclear program indeed defected, it would be a harsh blow to Iran and its nuclear plans on the one hand, and a triumph on the part of Western intelligence on the other.

COMMENT:  Again, we urge caution.  We hope the reports are true.  Even if they are, however, anyone with intelligence experience knows that defector statements must be checked carefully.  Defectors can have a variety of motives, can even be double agents, and what they reveal may not always prove accurate. 

However, if these defectors exist, and are genuine, we can get a treasure trove of information.

October 7, 2009   Permalink

US PREPARING TO BOMB IRAN? - AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  I'm skeptical, given the mentality of this president, but ABC News is reporting that the Pentagon is taking steps that may be related to a possible attack on Iran:

Is the U.S. stepping up preparations for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question appears to be yes.

Be careful here.  We're dealing with informed speculation.

...the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

That's a weapon described to penetrate deeply into a target and produce a huge explosion.

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).

The report concludes:

This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.

COMMENT:  We'll watch this, but the $51.9-million contract for the weapon is small, and we really don't know what the target is.  It could simply be a psychological step.  The contract calls for integration of the MOP with the B-2 bombers.

The administration has sent numerous signals playing down the military option with Iran, including the nonsensical observation that bombing would only set the Iranian program back a few years.  It's nonsensical because any attack could be repeated.

We should have a clearer picture by the end of the year of where the talks with Iran are actually going.

October 7, 2009    Permalink

CELEBRATE - AT 7:55 A.M. ET:  There are indeed things to celebrate.  We learned this morning that a Milwaukee-born American, Thomas A. Steitz, of Yale, will share this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  That means that Americans have shared in all three of the 2009 science Nobels announced so far, chemistry, physics, and medicine.

Americans should take pride in the accomplishments of American science.  For a country disparaged in certain circles as anti-intellectual, or even anti-education, we do awfully well in the big leagues. 

These triumphs should increase our wariness, however, at attempts to politicize science, or substitute junk science for real science. 

It would be nice if the White House would note the great week this country has had in the Nobels, but don't hold your breath.  The president might then have to concede that there's something good about the United States.

October 7,  2009   Permalink