SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 27,  2009

CLINTON CONFRONTING OBAMA? - AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  Someone once said that Gold Meir was the best man in the Israeli cabinet.  The meaning, of course, was that she was the strongest figure, the toughest member.

Some say that's true of Hillary Clinton.  With all her faults - volumes one and two - she has a reputation for toughness, and for taking a harder line on foreign policy than her starry-eyed boss, the president, who sees the world as one big student government. 

Now Clinton is taking a tougher line on Iran than Obama:

NEW YORK — The United States doubts Iran can convince the international community next week that its nuclear program is peaceful, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

The chief US diplomat also told CBS television that Iran would not have long hidden its second uranium enrichment plant, which the United States and other powers revealed Friday, if it had been for peaceful purposes.

Interviewed in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Clinton lowered expectations for a meeting October 1 in Geneva involving Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

She has said the plant's discovery gives a sense of urgency to the talks.

"They (the Iranians) have to come to this meeting on October 1st and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program," Clinton said.

COMMENT:  I've wondered at Urgent Agenda, several times, how long Hillary will last.  At what point does she become exasperated with a wimpy president?  At what point does she ask herself whether she wants to be blamed for failures in foreign policy.  Remember, Obama never blames himself.

We don't make predictions here, but I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary gives up the keys to the office safe in less than a year.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNOR - AT 9:58 P.M. ET:  There's a remarkable conflict going on between the president and the governor New York.  Both are African-Americans.  Indeed, David Paterson of New York is one of only two black governors, the other being Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.

Paterson's problem is that Barack Obama wants him to take a walk, right off the plank.  Paterson became governor upon the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, who was caught, literally, with his pants down - in a prostitution scandal.  But Paterson has performed with all the skill of the Syrian Air Force, and his poll numbers are in the basement.  There's a gubernatorial election next year.  Obama fears that if Paterson runs to keep his job, even in heavily Democratic New York, he not only will lose, but will bring down other Dem candidates.  So, there have been some not-so-subtle hints, delivered via surrogates, that maybe running a nice gift shop would be a good career move.

Trouble is, Paterson ain't goin'.  He is fighting, and the display is unseemly:

A beleaguered Gov. Paterson defied President Obama on a national stage this morning, insisting that New Yorkers "are the ones who should choose their governor" during an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

In the nine-minute interview with host David Gregory, the Democratic executive said that the White House never gave him an "explicit indication" to drop out of the 2010 race for governor, although he admitted that the Obama administration had relayed concerns about his political prospects.

"I’m blind, but I’m not oblivious," said Paterson, who’s legally blind. "I realize that there are people that don’t want me to run, but I have never gotten an explicit indication authorized from the White House that I shouldn’t run." The host responded with a vain attempt to pin the governor down.

"I just want to be clear on this point," Gregory said. "They certainly sent the message that you would not have their support if you ran. They had concerns about you running, that you should not run." Paterson ducked the question.

"They certainly sent the message that they had concerns," he said. "But let me just tell you at the outset that I am running for governor in 2010."

COMMENT:  What's a president to do?  Now, it's true, Obama has a history of throwing friends under the bus and embracing enemies, so maybe this doesn't upset him all that much.  But the other friends have gone under the bus willingly.  Paterson is pulling a Rosa Parks.

Obama favors Andrew Cuomo, currently attorney general of New York, and the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo.  But what if Paterson won't drop out, and there's a primary?  Does Obama reject a sitting Democratic governor, and an African-American at that?

You've got to give Paterson credit.  He's an incompetent governor, but he has some spine, and he's facing a spineless president.  This has the makings of a great political drama that can affect the entire Dem ticket in New York next year, which means House seats.  Stay tuned, and may the better spine win.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

EDITED TAPES? - AT 5:55 P.M. ET:  I have an almost visceral reaction to conspiracy theories.  I think most of them are insane, often devised to make money, are sometimes politically motivated, and often do damage to historical understanding.  The conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK assassination, especially the notion that the CIA did it, were particularly damaging.  Oliver Stone's reckless film, "JFK," misled its youthful viewers.  Even the History Channel has fallen prey at times.

However, I'm willing to listen if someone comes forward with real evidence.  I've always been uneasy about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, believing that we may not know the full story.  Once a "right-wing" conspiracy was identified, journalists seemed perfectly content to leave it at that.  All talk of other connections was shut down rather quickly. 

Now, 14 years after the event, there's a new development that may - I stress may- be of significance.  It appears that some of the surveillance tapes that caught the bombing were edited.  The AP picked up the story:

Long-secret security tapes showing the chaos immediately after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building are blank in the minutes before the blast and appear to have been edited, an attorney who obtained the recordings said Sunday.

A Southwestern Bell security camera recorded people fleeing the building in the seconds after the Oklahoma City bombing. The time on the recording is slightly behind the established time of the explosion -- 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995.

"The real story is what's missing," said Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney who obtained the recordings through the federal Freedom of Information Act as part of an unofficial inquiry he is conducting into the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people and injured hundreds more.

Trentadue gave copies of the tapes to The Oklahoman newspaper, which posted them online and provided copies to The Associated Press.
The tapes turned over by the FBI came from security cameras various companies had mounted outside office buildings near the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. They are blank at points before 9:02 a.m., when a truck bomb carrying a 4,000 pound (1,815 kilogram) fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb detonated in front of the building, Trentadue said.
"Four cameras in four different locations going blank at basically the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence," Trentadue said.

He said government officials claim the security cameras did not record the minutes before the bombing because "they had run out of tape" or "the tape was being replaced."

"The interesting thing is they spring back on after 9:02," he said. "The absence of footage from these crucial time intervals is evidence that there is something there that the FBI doesn't want anybody to see."

COMMENT:  Well, maybe, maybe not.  There may be a valid technical explanation.  Also, Mr. Trentadue has a personal interest in the case, as the story shows.

Still, this is something that good investigative journalists should follow.  Blanks on tapes are often causes for real concern.  The 18-minute gap in a tape made by President Richard M. Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, was a key piece of evidence in the Watergate investigations.  A blank in tapes made of children helped convince journalists in the 1980s that a child-abuse case was fraudulent. 

Care must be taken.  I've never seen a conspiracy theory pan out.  But any indication of tampering with evidence - like editing a tape - must be examined.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

SAFIRE GONE - AT 4:53 P.M. ET:  William Safire has died at 79.  He was a superb conservative columnist for The New York Times op-ed page, who could state the conservative position clearly and elegantly.  He was also an expert on the English language.

I recall when Safire was hired by The Times in the early 70s.  There was a mini-revolt among some of the staff because he had written speeches for Richard Nixon.  The purity of The Times was being threatened!  To his credit, the publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, known as "Punch," refused to heed the revolutionaries.  The result was an excellent association between a liberal paper and a conservative columnist. 

September 27, 2009   Permalink

GREAT!! - AT 3:14 P.M. ET: 

Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel won re-election with enough support to switch coalition partner and govern with the pro-business Free Democrats, freeing her to push ahead with an agenda of tax cuts and labor-market deregulation.

“We’ve done something fabulous,” Merkel told supporters at her Christian Democratic Union’s headquarters in Berlin today. “We said we wanted another government to maximize growth and with that jobs. We can really celebrate tonight.”

COMMENT:  This is terrific.  With Sarkozy in France, and the conservatives poised to win big in Britain in the spring, we might well have what we could not have imagined just a few years ago - a counterbalance to the Most High in the White House.

Merkel's large victory gives her the chance to name a foreign minister from her own party, replacing the current leftist who was forced on her by her coalition. 

This makes our own 2010 elections even more significant.  Conservatives must make gains, neutralizing liberal control of Congress, and bringing some control to the runaway liberal train we see going by right now.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

FIRM AND CLEAR ON NATIONAL DEFENSE - AT 11:52 A.M. ET:  The Obama administration seems hopelessly confused and directionless on Afghanistan.  (You remember Afghanistan, don't you?  According to our president, at least during the campaign, that's the good war, as opposed to Iraq, the bad war.  Definitions are tentative and are not guaranteed to last.) 

Administration mouthpieces apparently didn't talk to each other before appearing on talk shows:

Top administration officials appear to be reading from different scripts on top Gen. Stanley McChrystal‘s request for more troops, which he hand delivered to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen on Saturday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview taped Friday on ABC's “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” said that a decision will be made in “a matter of a few weeks.”

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a “Face the Nation” interview on CBS, also taped on Friday, seemed to take a different position, saying that “we have to wait” until after the contested presidential election in Afghanistan, “hopefully very soon." But With the harsh Afghan winter -- which would significantly delay any new round of election -- and no resolution in sight, that would likely take months if there’s not a political deal hashed out in the meantime.

National Security Adviser and retired Gen. Jim Jones, in an interview with Bob Woodward published in Sunday's Washington Post, seemed to side with Clinton, saying “I don’t have a deadline in mind.”

COMMENT:  The president has been in office eight months.  He's declared that we must win in Afghanistan, but his indecisiveness now must be a terrible blow to the military that has to fight the war.  Virtually every day this amateurish administration sends a message of weakness and confusion to our enemies.  They will respond accordingly.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

DISASTER FOR YOUNG AMERICANS - AT 10:22 A.M. ET:  Economic statistics, apparently buried in other reports, paint an extremely bleak picture for young Americans, and make talk of a recovery almost ridiculous.  From The New York Post:

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent -- a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. -- meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession -- in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."

COMMENT:  That figure of 52.2% is staggering.  The potential for social upheaval, especially in large cities, is great.  But what is especially bizarre is the fact that the stock market is doing well when 52.2% of young Americans are out of work.

The political implications are harder to measure.  On the one hand, there could be rage against an administration that promised the moon.  On the other hand, many of these young people are probably liberal, many are probably minorities, and they may see more hope in the Democratic Party.  But this is a segment of the population that is hurting badly.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

RESPECT FOR OBAMA'S BACKBONE - AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Iran continues to show its deep respect for our president' resolve and firmness.  You know, they must be shaking in their boots.  From Fox News:

After claiming to successfully test-fire two short-range missiles during drills Sunday by the elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran will test-fire a missile on Monday that could have the capability to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf region, Reuters reported.

The drills are a show of force days after the U.S. and its allies condemned Tehran over a newly revealed underground nuclear facility that was being constructed secretly

The Guards on Monday will test-fire the surface-to-surface Shahab 3 missile, which Iranian officials say has a range of around 1,240 miles, potentially putting Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf within reach, according to state radio. It has been tested several times before.

COMMENT:  We will be sitting down with the Iranians on Thursday.  On our side of the table they will see Barack Hussein Obama Jr., a man who openly said this week that he does not seek "victory" in the confrontation with Iran. 

How frightened do you think the Iranians will be?

September 27, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA SUDDENLY DOWN IN RASMUSSEN POLL - AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Normally, when a president engages the world, his poll numbers go up.  It's the "rally 'round the flag" effect.  We support the president when he's dealing with foreign nations.

For whatever reason, and we stress that this is a daily snapshot, President Obama's numbers have taken a sudden turn for the worse, even after a week of heavy diplomacy and endless international handshakes. 

Rasmussen has the president's overall approval this morning at 48%, but his disapproval at 51%, his most negative showing in nine days.

In Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, Obama is at minus 10, his worst showing since September 8th.

We'll follow this.  It can turn around tomorrow.  But if today's result is indicative of a trend, it could signal a rejection of Obama's foreign policy.  Together with his domestic problems, that is Advil territory.

September 27, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  I haven't seen the wreckage of the Obama foreign policy expressed better than this, the best two paragraphs I've read recently.  From Abe Greenwald at the Weekly Standard:

With last Wednesday's decision to scrap plans for a promised missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, President Obama put the finishing touches on a new and dangerous entity: post-allied America. With his declaration a week later before the UN General Assembly that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War" no longer apply, he justified his creation. As a string of headlines from Central and Eastern European capitals makes plain, the U.S.'s most reliable democratic partners see the administration's decision for what it was: a historic shift in America's priorities. Adversaries' wishes now enjoy equal baseline footing with the needs of friends. Whatever may tip Washington in this or that policy direction, a history of cooperation or shared ideology will not be a factor. The Obama administration believes, ahistorically, that this will turn bad actors good.

The implications are disastrous. Small democracies, like Poland and the Czech Republic, may fall prey to aggressive, expansionist neighbors like Russia. Rogue and autocratic regimes will go unchecked as they ratchet up various proscribed initiatives. The U.S. will lose access to valuable partnerships, thus halting our ability to roll back dangers and maintain global stability. Already fading is American credibility. How can the U.S. hope to shame China out of abetting totalitarian North Korea when President Obama himself has just agreed to snub the pro-Democracy Dalai Lama out of deference to China? One-time allies will be forced into expedient relationships with our ideological antagonists. Democracy may see worldwide retreat.

COMMENT:  No comment needed.

September 27,  2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  SEPTEMBER 26,  2009

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  From Janet Daley in London's Telegraph, on President Obama's increasingly grandiose (and delusional) talk about the global community, global governance, global this, global that.  Once again a British writer pens an incisive essay on the strange goings on inside the head of an American president:

What nobody seems to be saying is that it is the proper business of democratically elected governments to protect and defend the needs and wishes of their own people. This is nothing less than the whole 18th-century project of modern democracy with which we are playing fast and loose. Ironically, the fad for "global governance" – whatever that turns out to mean – suits democratically elected leaders rather well: it absolves them of responsibility while enhancing their prestige. Perfect. But then exposure on the world stage is also likely to betray the limits of their understanding: does Mr Obama really think that he can coerce or shame European nations – with all their historical baggage and self-serving complacency – into forsaking what he calls their "collective inaction" on foreign policy (on Iran, say)?

COMMENT:  Ah, Ms. Daley, Mr. Obama believes he can do anything. His mouth is his magic wand, waved all over the admiring world.  Do we dare doubt him?  Do we dare question?

Yup.

September 26, 2009   Permalink

THIS SAYS IT - AT 6:54 P.M. ET:  Anne Bayefsky is one of the most astute writers about the UN, its hypocrisy and dishonesty, and how American foreign policy gets compromised by UN degeneracy. 

In the last few days Anne has noticed a remarkably cynical contradiction in Obama's diplomatic maneuvering, and she comes to a troubling conclusion.  She notes that the president chaired the UN Security Council, yet refused to put either Iran or North Korea on the council's agenda.  She writes:

However, speaking in Pittsburgh, Obama admitted that:

"yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years. . . . The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. . ."

In other words, when President Obama addressed the General Assembly and Security Council he already knew that Iran was ignoring international standards, and its latest violations endangered international peace and security more than ever before. And yet he deliberately refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Council summit — the same Council that he claimed bore responsibility for responding to such threats.

Why would the president not put the discovery of the secret Iranian nuclear plant on the UN agenda, where he had the attention of every nation in the world?

Sad to say, I'm afraid Anne explains it:

There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.

COMMENT:  That, of course, is what many of us are thinking.  Lots of bluster when the plant's existence was made known.  But today the president was back in business, with language that might be fine when teaching an international law class, but not so fine when dealing with reality:

"Iran's leaders must now choose - they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Oh dear.  They will "deny opportunity to their own people," the same people they've been shooting in the streets of Tehran.  That's Obama at his toughest.  Even the British and French are putting us to shame.

September 26, 2009   Permalink

IRAN OKAYS INSPECTORS FOR "SECRET" PLANT - AT 6:33 P.M. ET:  Iran announced that UN inspectors may visit the "secret" nuclear plant disclosed by Obama yesterday.

Big deal.  Of course the inspectors may visit.  Once the plant's existence was outed, the Iranians really had no choice.  Charles Krauthammer predicted this decision last night.  What will the inspectors find?  Whatever the Iranians haven't already hidden.

The White House said:

The White House responded to the development by urging Iran's complete and immediate cooperation with the IAEA. "After hiding this site from the international community for years, full transparency is essential, and it is time for Iran to play by the rules like everyone else," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

COMMENT:  Play by the rules?  Is the White House serious?  Of course it is.  To the Obama crowd, this is no different from a Harvard football game.  We have rules.  We have procedures.  You show your ticket to the guy at the gate.  It's as simple as that.

Except that nuclear devices don't go off during Harvard football games.

September 26,  2009   Permalink

PRESIDENT NOT GAINING IN RASMUSSEN POLL - AT 11:23 A.M. ET:  I'd expected Obama to get a bit of a bounce as a result of all his diplomatic activity, and there was some hint of that earlier in the week.  But the numbers seem to be settling down.  Rasmussen this morning puts the president's overall approval at 50%, and disapproval at 49%.   Not a great showing after Obama's unprecedented "See me everywhere" campaign.

Ras's presidential approval index, which measures the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, shows Obama at minus nine, 30% to 39%.  Again, these are not numbers you show to the mother-in-law.

I don't think the "strongly approve" will drop much below 30%.  That's the liberal base of the Democratic Party, and takes account of the president's almost unanimous support among African-Americans.  But "strongly disapprove" can rise.

Also, don't be shocked if the president does get a brief bounce from his confrontation with Iran.  People tend to rally 'round the chief at times of international tension.  But he'll have to show results to maintain any gain.

September 26, 2009   Permalink

CONFRONTATION BREWING? - AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick refers us to a little-noticed piece reporting that General David Petraeus is placing himself squarely behind the Afghanistan strategy of General Stanley McChrystal, setting up a possible confrontation with the White House:

WASHINGTON -- Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, says he endorses Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy in Afghanistan.

The Afghan assessment is contained in a confidential report prepared by the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. The thrust of McChrystal's assessment is that without more troops by next year the eight-year-old conflict could result in failure.

Speaking at a conference of military and civilian counterinsurgency experts, Petraeus said the current multi-dimensional approach is the only way to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, the Voice of America reported. He said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also has endorsed McChrystal's assessment, the report said.

"To counter terrorism, and I'm talking about terrorism writ large, extremism, requires more than just your special mission unit forces," Petraeus said. "It really requires a whole of governments, counterinsurgency approach. Many different government agencies, civil-military partnerships and, again, a comprehensive approach to these problems is the answer."

COMMENT:  Watch Petraeus carefully.  There have been rumors in recent weeks that Gen. McChrystal might resign if his recommendations are not followed, but McChrystal himself threw water on those.

However, Petraeus is taking a risk in endorsing McChrystal's recommendations at a time when they're coming under fire and ridicule from elements in the Obama administration.  It's being widely reported that the president wants to find an alternative route that will not involve sending more troops.

Why would Petraeus give such a public endorsement to a strategy that is being trashed by Obama leaks every day?  We can only speculate, but I've felt for some time that Petraeus has political ambitions.  A resignation in protest is a great way to get started in the opposition party.  I stress that this is pure speculation, and I do not base it on any inside knowledge.

I also stress that many military officers find the transition to politics uncomfortable, as Wesley Clark found out.  The language of the military and the language of politics are different.  But, still, I urge you to watch Petraeus.

September 26, 2009   Permalink 

BIG TALKER - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  President Obama is always in a talking mode, but he was over the top this week.  His speech to the UN General Assembly was mostly about himself and his utter wonderfulness.  Truly a gift to a wanting world.

Now he's at it again.  Although there have been no real accomplishments in foreign policy, the president's latest radio address claims that there's been foreign progress all over the place, maybe too much for mere mortals to absorb.  From The Politico:

“My administration,” he said “has renewed American leadership, and pursued a new era of engagement” that has produced tangible results including “an historic agreement to reform the global finance system,” and having “reformed our international economic architecture … established American leadership in the global pursuit of the clean energy,” and “advanced the cause of peace and security.”

Wow.  And he did this without putting on weight.

He also used the address to tout the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, though the two leaders offered what the AP memorably called “no other apparent progress beyond a promise to talk about more talks.”

When the usually-in-the-tank AP raises questions about Obama, you know the man is in some trouble.  Obama has trouble understanding the difference between promises, pledges, talking, and results.  Results rank low.

Obama also touted what he called “We also took unprecedented steps to secure loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to seek a world without them.”

This is childish.  There is no possibility of a world without some nuclear weapons as long as the ability exists to make them.  We can reduce, but not eliminate.  He's playing us for fools...and not for the first time.

"These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world, it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come."

COMMENT:  Oh please.  This man's lack of graciousness is appalling.  He does not acknowledge any contribution by any of his predecessors.  He's doing it all himself.  He is truly The One, and anointed.

We get tired of this after awhile.  George Bush was far from a perfect president, but our relationship with India, the world's largest democracy, grew much stronger on his watch: so did our relationship with Eastern Europe, a relationship that Obama has damaged; so did our relations with Africa, where roads are named for Bush because of his AIDS program; so did our relationship with Japan.  And our country was not attacked again.

The trouble is, Obama doesn't care much about any of those things.  He cares about apologizing.

Now he's up against it with Iran.  Okay, Anointed One, start proving yourself, and don't make another "Mr. Wonderful" speech until you can show results.

September 26, 2009   Permalink

GERMANY VOTES - AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  It hasn't been well publicized in American media, but Germany, one of our most critical allies, votes tomorrow.  At stake is whether pro-American Chancellor Angela Merkel stays in power, or whether the leftists take over.  Most observers are betting on Merkel, but there's a wild card - threats of terrorism against Germany by Al Qaeda.  Remember that Spain, days after a terrorist attack, caved in and threw out a pro-American prime minister, voting in a leftist government that has been aloof to the United States.

BERLIN – German political parties held their final campaign rallies before Sunday's national election, mindful of specific new warnings by Islamic militants that they would exact retribution for the country's presence in Afghanistan.

Two threatening videos surfaced Friday — one by al-Qaida and another by the Taliban — showing video of top German landmarks like the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and Munich's world-renowned Oktoberfest.
IntelCenter, an organization that monitors terrorism, said the threats directed at Germany are "now at unprecedented levels."

Chancellor Angela Merkel hopes to return for a second four-year term and ditch her conservative party's "grand coalition" with her main rivals, the Social Democrats, led by her foreign minister and challenger, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The 54-year-old Merkel wants to form a new center-right government with her preferred partners, the pro-business Free Democrats. But while she is personally popular among voters — some 49 percent said they would vote for her — Germans vote for parties and do not directly elect candidates.

Merkel is widely expected to remain chancellor and her conservatives to be the biggest party.

COMMENT:  It is absolutely crucial that Merkel remain in power, with enough support to govern effectively.  Germany would be a key player in any action against Iran.  Its role with Iran hasn't always been honorable - it trades widely with Iran and supplies that country with electronic equipment - but the Merkel government is far more responsible than any leftist counterpart would be.  So, we have a lot riding on tomorrow's election.

I wonder who Obama is rooting for?

September 26,  2009   Permalink