SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 6,  2009

THEY WANTED TO KILL WHO? - AT 11:24 P.M. ET:  You really can't make this up.  From the Jerusalem Post:

The leader of an al-Qaida-inspired group in the Gaza Strip revealed on Sunday that his men recently tried to assassinate former US president Jimmy Carter and Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair.

Mahmoud Taleb, a former commander of Hamas's armed wing, Izzadin Kassam, also threatened that his supporters were planning to launch attacks on Hamas.

Taleb, who is wanted by Hamas's security forces, has been in hiding for more than two years. Several attempts by Hamas to arrest him have failed, prompting the movement to detain many of his friends and relatives.

A veteran journalist in the Gaza Strip described Taleb as the Palestinian Osama bin Laden. The journalist said that Taleb's group was seeking to establish an Islamic "emirate" in the Gaza Strip.

COMMENT:  The idea of a Palestinian group trying to assassinate Jimmy Carter reminds us of the word "ingratitude."  I mean, Carter is practically Palestinian himself.  All he needs is a suicide belt and a faculty appointment at San Francisco State. 

A movement is in trouble when it can't tell the players even with a scorecard.

September 6, 2009   Permalink

A TROUBLING RACIAL DIVIDE - AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  It hasn't been emphasized, but a troubling racial divide, normally present in American politics, is widening further: 

WASHINGTON — After a summer of health care battles and sliding approval ratings for President Barack Obama, the White House is facing a troubling new trend: The voters losing faith in the president are the ones he had worked hardest to attract.

New surveys show steep declines in Obama's approval ratings among whites, including Democrats and independents, who were crucial elements of the diverse coalition that helped elect the country's first black president.

Among white Democrats, Obama's job approval rating has dropped 11 points since his 100-days mark in April, according to surveys by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. It has dropped by nine points among white independents and whites older than 50, and by 12 points among white women — all voter groups that will be targeted by both parties for support in next year's midterm elections.

“While Obama has a lock on African-Americans, his support among white voters seems to be almost in a free fall,” said veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. 

COMMENT:  This is sad, but probably inevitable.  For understandable reasons, African-Americans will stick with Obama.  But other Americans, who do not have an emotional ethnic attachment, will not.  Inevitably, racial tensions will rise, which would be a tragic legacy for the Obama administration.

September 6, 2009   Permalink

AND THE SPIN IS ON - AT 8:22 P.M. ET:  Today is normally one of the slowest news days of the year.  But news never stops in the Age of Obama.  Now that Van Jones, resident red and confirmed crackpot, has resigned from the administration, the spin is on.  The Politico gives us the mainstream media position:

With the resignation of green jobs adviser Van Jones, the conservative firing squad is setting its sights on other White House czars.

The resignation of Jones — who stepped down from his post as the White House green jobs adviser early Sunday morning, citing a "vicious smear campaign" waged against him by "opponents of reform" — was a win for conservative politicians and pundits who waged a months-long campaign hammering him for comments he made in his previous post as an environmental activist for poor and minority communities.

Right next to this depiction of Jones as victim-of-the-day, there's a warm, fuzzy picture of him.  Just your average smiling guy, friend of all.  How could you not love him?

Now, right-wing politicians and pundits are looking for other White House czars with controversial pasts. "Van Jones is the tip of the iceberg. As VJ has said, "'Personnel is policy,"" conservative pundit Glenn Beck Twittered on Friday. Attacking Obama’s advisers, conservatives believe, will raise questions about the judgment of their popular boss.

COMMENT:  You'll notice that "conservative" has now been upgraded to "right wing."  And it's a bit much to suggest that conservatives are now "looking for" other czars with difficult pasts.  Conservatives have been talking about some of them for months.

And I love the term, "popular boss."  The writer apparently hasn't been following the polls.

It won't be long before the Obama White House labels all this a "distraction."  But personnel is indeed policy.  Early on, some conservative Obama watchers warned that it's the middle-level appointments that are often most troubling in an administration.  It's at the middle level that policy is often made and carried out.

Of course, the whole subject is a bit awkward, as there are many things about the president that we don't know.  But the media's apparent position on that is, "Don't ask, don't tell."

September 6, 2009   Permalink

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL - AT 12:10 P.M. ET:  For those of you old enough to remember Jack Webb and "Dragnet," reader Ray Cleveland recommends this YouTube lecture from Sergeant Joe Friday to a certain modern political figure with messianic visions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4r6YCUtxfs

Great.

September 6,  2009   Permalink

JIMMY CARTER IS NUTS - AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  Now, I hate to use such harsh rhetoric - we're such a civilized site - but what's true is true.  There's something not quite right about the man.

Today, in the Washington Post, Carter expounds on his well-known views of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Naturally, he goes through his usual Israel-bashing routine, now so familiar, but he tops it with something utterly bizarre:

A more likely alternative to the present debacle is one state, which is obviously the goal of Israeli leaders who insist on colonizing the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A majority of the Palestinian leaders with whom we met are seriously considering acceptance of one state, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbors and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this nonviolent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

They are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.

COMMENT:  Say what?  The goal of Israeli leaders is one state in which Arabs will be a clear majority?  I mean, that's what the man actually says here.

Now we all understand, as if we didn't already, why no thoughtful person can take Jimmah Carter seriously.

The problem is, he was president, and we are still paying the price for his buffoonery.  Ask the people of Iran.

September 6, 2009   Permalink  

THE DISGRACE CONTINUES - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  Even though America lost more citizens than any other country in the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103, it has been the British press, not ours, that has relentlessly pursued the story of why the Lockerbie bomber was recently freed and sent back to his native Libya.  We now know, based on British reporting, that money was indeed a factor - trade deals with Libya - even though the publicly stated reason for the release was compassion, that the bomber is dying of cancer.

Now, even the compassion argument is being blown up.  Apparently, the medical reports were bought and paid for.  Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts us to this:  Britain's Telegraph reports:

The British, Scottish and Libyan governments connived to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Medical evidence that helped Megrahi, 57, to be released was paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged three doctors to say he had only three months to live.

The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.

And...

Professor Karol Sikora, one of the examining doctors and the medical director of CancerPartnersUK in London, told The Sunday Telegraph: “The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans]..."

COMMENT:  Nice, huh?  And our government's response?  Aside from some initial, and very muted, grumbling, there hasn't been much.  Another part of our "outreach," presumably, to the Muslim world.

Makes you proud of your government, doesn't it?

September 6, 2009   Permalink

JONES DEPARTS - AT 9:54 A.M. ET:  Van Jones has resigned as the president's "green jobs" czar.  Resignation came Saturday night on a holiday weekend, when three journalists were working.  As readers know, Jones was unmasked as a self-proclaimed Communist, 9-11 conspiracy theorist, racialist, all-around vulgarian, and clown. 

Now he will probably get a lot of money for making speeches, and can a Van Jones Foundation be far behind?

Naturally, some in the press are desperate to portray this as a right-wing hit job:  The New York Times was particularly disgraceful:

In a victory for Republicans and the Obama administration’s conservative critics, Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs “czar” on Saturday.

Controversy over Mr. Jones’s past comments and affiliations has slowly escalated over several weeks, erupting on Friday with calls for his resignation.

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

Apparently, it's only conservatives who were concerned that Mr. Jones is a certified whack job.  And get this:

Mr. Jones’s involvement in the 1990s with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement prompted recent accusations by conservative critics that he associated with Communists.

Wrong.  He's a self-described Communist.  Bit of a difference.

Well, he's gone now.  So a czarship is open.  Apply at the White House.  Sanity not required.

September 6, 2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  SEPTEMBER 5,  2009

ANOTHER OBAMA BLUNDER, OR DISGRACE, TAKE YOUR PICK - AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  The great Anne Bayefsky, whose reports from the UN put the mainstream media to shame, reports on a new Obama stunt that is bound to diminish us as a nation even further:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

But...

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

Not on any specific countries?  Well, of course.  Each country has its own narrative.  One is as good as the other. 

This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states...It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

And...

The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Finally...

Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama’s no-names strategy for his September rollout.

Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality.

COMMENT:  The problem for us is that there are many who can't, or won't.  This kind of diplomatic approach is outrageous, and filled with danger.  It approximates the speech made by Secretary of State Dean Acheson in January of 1950, in which he left South Korea out of the American defense line.  Five months later, North Korea invaded South Korea, apparently expecting no American response.

The president is increasingly incompetent or deceitful, or both.  This UN session should sicken Americans.  But it will not sicken the "sophisticates" in the foreign-policy establishment, who'll think it's just fine.  And they have powerful allies in the media.

Sparks are coming.  We'll help provide them.

September 5, 2009   Permalink 

MORE ON JONES - AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  Van Jones, the president's embattled "green jobs" czar, is still on the payroll at this hour, despite multiple revelations that he is an leftist extremist with a history of very disturbing views - among them that 9-11 was an inside job, that President Bush spoke like a "crackhead," and now, we find in a new news report, the view that only white suburban kids commit Columbine-type massacres.  That last point might technically be true, but murder in the inner city is not exactly unknown. 

Jones has not resigned.  He should, to save the president embarrassment.  Indeed, the only reason I can think of for his not resigning is that he may have gotten private assurance from the White House that he's being kept on.  I suspect that his extremist views have no impact on an important segment of Obama's left-wing constituency or even parts of the Congressional Black Caucus.  That group's leader, after all, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, is a follower of Fidel Castro. 

Jones's presence will give renewed emphasis to the charge, made during the presidential campaign and ridiculed by the in-the-tank-for-The-One media, that Obama is himself sympathetic to the fringe left, and associated most of his life with some of its players.  Those charges seem fresh today, don't they?

September 5, 2009   Permalink

VIETNAM SEQUEL? - AT 12:06 P.M. ET:  Democrats in Congress are already balking at sending more troops to Afghanistan.  No matter how you feel about this, or any military strategy, what's building in the Democratic Party is another Vietnam scenario - cut off the aid, make any continuation impossible.    The White House, privately, may actually not be opposed to this.  The president could tell the nation that "my hands were tied."  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Increasing congressional discord over the next U.S. steps in Afghanistan, coupled with a spike in violence there, is deepening the political divide on the war and how many troops are needed to fight it.

Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by the White House to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance. And their unease was fueled by another bombing, that left as many as 70 dead, including civilians who were killed when the U.S. blew up tanker trucks hijacked by the Taliban.

That deadly U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan Friday complicates the debate over the need for more U.S. troops, bolstering arguments that Afghan leaders must increasingly fend for themselves.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the United States must focus more on building Afghanistan's security forces. His cautionary stance was echoed by Sen. Jack Reed, who is also on the committee and spent two days in Afghanistan this week with Levin

COMMENT:  Things are not going well in Afghanistan, and Iraq is iffy.  We have an administration that, while it hasn't pulled out of either place, is not known for its resolve against enemies of the United States.  Resolve in Afghanistan, as an expert recently wrote at Urgent Agenda, would require a major, massive effort and a long-term commitment.  The American people, though, are tired of it all.

About Iraq:  It's not going to be an ally of the U.S.  It's a Muslim country, and I've never seen a Muslim country say "thank you" to anything Americans do.  While getting rid of Saddam Hussein has probably made the region better, and prevented the development of new WMD programs - very worthy goals - our long-term prospects in Iraq are not secure, by any means.

This president has a pile of international problems, and no real strategy.  This week he concentrates on saving his health-care "reform" plan, which he has botched to a very high standard of botching.

September 5, 2009    Permalink

CONGRESS TOO LIBERAL, SAY MOST AMERICANS:  Rasmussen reports that most Americans are ideologically detached from Congress:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters nationwide believe that Congress is too liberal while 22% hold the opposite view and say it is too conservative. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 14% say the ideological balance of Congress is about right and 12% are not sure.

Republicans overwhelmingly believe that Congress is too liberal, a view shared by 59% of those not affiliated with either major party.

A plurality of Democrats have a different view. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Democrats say Congress is too conservative, 19% too liberal, and 26% about right.

COMMENT:  The key figure here is the one for independents, 59% of whom think Congress is too liberal.  That gives some hope for the 2010 midterms, if Republicans run an effective campaign, by no means a sure thing.

September 5, 2009   Permalink

THE JONES LAD - AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  At last report, Van Jones, the self-declared Communist on the president's payroll, still had his job.  The controversy over this "green jobs czar" is building, as Fox reports:

The White House brushed aside mounting questions about controversial green jobs czar Van Jones on Friday, even as congressional Republicans demanded Jones's resignation and some prominent Democrats urged the president to fire the outspoken aide if he has not resigned before next week's Joint Session of Congress.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana became the first lawmaker to call for the resignation of President Obama's "green jobs" adviser over new revelations about his past affiliations and statements.

Pence said Obama should get rid of Van Jones, 40, if the adviser is unwilling to resign.

"His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate," Pence said in a written statement released Friday.

COMMENT:  The fact that Jones was hired in the first place, and survived the vetting process, is disgraceful enough.  He's just another version of Bill Ayers or the Rev. Wright.  The fact that he's still there is even more disgraceful.

If Jones is still on the payroll Tuesday, when Congress returns and gets ready for a presidential address before a joint session, Republicans should be in an uproar.  Make it a major issue.  Tie it to other, radical things this president has done.  This is not a "distraction."  It tells us what the real views of this crowd are. 

We still don't have anyone in place in charge of dispensing foreign aid because the Obama vetting process is so notoriously slow.  Even Hillary Clinton complained about that.  But Jones went right through.

September 5, 2009   Permalink

THE ADMISSION - AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  There is now an admission from a senior British official that money was indeed involved in the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber.  From Britain's Telegraph:

Jack Straw has reignited the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by admitting for the first time that trade and oil were an essential part of the Government’s decision to include him in a prisoner transfer deal with Libya.

The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later.

The admission directly contradicts Gordon Brown's insistence only days ago that oil deals were not a factor in the prisoner's release.

And...

Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a prisoner transfer agreement would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi. It followed a warning from BP that a failure to include the bomber could hurt the oil giant’s business interests.

When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.

“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

COMMENT:  Let's see if the United States government has anything more to say about this sordid affair.  And let's have some commentators wonder out loud whether the British decision, deeply offensive to Americans, was made because the Brits knew that our soft, ineffective new president wouldn't complain too loudly.

September 5, 2009   Permalink