WEDNESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 30,  2009

BE CAREFUL OF IRANIAN DICTATORS BEARING GIFTS - AT 8:26 P.M. ET:  Iran is seeking to shake up its talks with the West, set to start tomorrow, with a deceptive proposal:

Iran will propose that it is prepared to buy from a third party uranium enriched to the grade it requires for its Tehran reactor rather than carry out the enrichment itself, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.

Note the fine print.  The purchase would be for its tiny Tehran research reactor only.  They're giving up nothing, including the right to enrich uranium at other plants.

His remarks, ahead of Thursday talks in Geneva with six major world powers about Iran's nuclear programme, represent the first time Tehran has agreed to discuss specifics of its enrichment operations with the powers.

Some will make something of that.  It's no big deal.  We expected them to dangle some hotel-room keys in front of us.

"One of the subjects on the agenda of this negotiation is how we can get fuel for our Tehran reactor," the president was quoted by ISNA news agency as saying.

"As I said in New York, we need 19.75 percent-enriched uranium. We said that, and we propose to buy it from anybody who is ready to sell it to us. We are ready to give 3.5 percent-enriched uranium and then they can enrich it more and deliver to us 19.75 percent-enriched uranium."

In New York last week, Ahmadinejad said Iran would seek to enrich uranium to 20 percent itself if it could not find the product in the market for its research reactor in Tehran.

I hope the Obamans see this "proposal" for what it is.  The problem, of course, is that some professional talker in the State Department might describe it to reporters as an "encouraging" beginning, setting off the word processors of the Obama choir in the media.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:07 P.M. ET:  The double standard marches on.  Many commentators agonize over the tone of the current debate over health care, but remained silent at the wild attacks on President Bush - attacks in which he was called a Nazi, a liar, a man who ginned up a war in Texas, and other nice things. 

Now a new episode in the double standards series.  The political world correctly condemned Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting, "You lie," at President Obama during the State of the Union message, and Wilson's Republican colleagues joined in the condemnation.  But an outrage just as serious brings hardly a criticism from the liberal commentariat or the perpetrator's Democratic comrades:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seeking payback from a recent reprimand of one of their own for heckling President Barack Obama, House Republicans want a Democratic lawmaker to apologize or face a reprimand for saying the GOP wants Americans to ''die quickly'' if they get sick.

Amid the bitter political bickering, Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida stood firmly behind his comments.

The first-term lawmaker returned to the House floor Wednesday afternoon and mocked Republicans' call for an apology by citing a study being published in the American Journal of Public Health that found nearly 45,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance.

''I would like to apologize ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this Holocaust in America,'' he said.

COMMENT:  Grayson's wild accusation against the GOP deserves reprimand.  It is a lie, and a big one.  And his use of a Holocaust analogy also deserves reprimand.  (Of course there won't be one).

And I seriously doubt a study saying that 45,000 people die in America each year for lack of health insurance.  We have programs in place to treat people, regardless of their means.  The system needs improvement, of course, but figures like that need to be looked at with two eyes.  Unless people are refused care on economic grounds, they are not dying for lack of health insurance. 

As for Grayson, I saw him on TV today.  He's an embarrassment, but in the precincts of the left, he's mainstream.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

END OF A BRAND - AT 5:29 P.M. ET:  This will certainly not help the employment picture in America's shrinking industrial sector.  From The New York Times:

DETROIT — General Motors said Wednesday that it now planned to close its Saturn brand after Penske Automotive abruptly called off an agreement to acquire the division.

Penske said in a statement that it could not proceed with the purchase because another manufacturer, which it did not identify, rejected plans to build vehicles that would be distributed under the Saturn brand name.

COMMENT:  Another sad day.  At one time General Motors symbolized American industry.  It was "The General."  GM, now essentially under federal control, now only has Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and its truck division.  Saturn was supposed to be the "independent" division, doing things in a new way.  Apparently, that didn't have much effect.  It never could develop the aura of the Japanese cars (many of which are made right here). 

I wonder whether, if we ever have a large international conflict, we will have the industrial base left to sustain the effort.  Whoever thought we'd be wondering about something like that?

September 30, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 5:07 P.M. ET:  From the increasingly important Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

The fundamental problem with the Obama administration's approach to Iran is that it treats the nature of the regime as an unknown. Back in June, after a week of mayhem and murder by the regime in the streets of Tehran, Obama said: "I'm very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is-and is not."

He was right. And the signal was clear to everyone but those determined to ignore it: The Iranian regime is corrupt, despotic, and willing to use terror internally and externally to achieve its goals. And the lesson of its repeated lies about its nuclear program is equally clear: The Iranian regime will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons.

In some respects, the news of the second Iranian facility makes it harder for Obama to pretend that the Iranian regime is something it's not.

COMMENT:  Hayes is correct, but the Obama administration, led by a supreme egotist, is determined to prove that it can negotiate with anyone, and succeed. 

My great fear is that Iran will agree to something we seek, drag out negotiations over details for months, then sign some kind of deal, allowing Obama, umbrella in hand, to return to the United States bringing us "peace in our time."   Meanwhile, the Iranians will cheat, hide and deflect, and do exactly what they would have done with no agreement.

September 30,  2009   Permalink

THE WELL-TIMED LEAK - AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  The British, like the French, are clearly not pleased with the quality of U.S. intelligence analysis on Iran.  Today we have another well-timed leak, reported by Reuters:

British officials suspect Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons for the past few years, differing from a U.S. view that Tehran halted work on design and weaponization in 2003, a UK security source said on Wednesday.

Last week's revelation of a second nuclear plant in Iran only served to support international suspicions about an Iranian cover-up to mask nuclear weapons designs, the source said.

A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published in December 2007 judged with high confidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003 and had not restarted it as of mid-2007.
The estimate defined the phrase nuclear weapons program to mean nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.

"We didn't share the U.S. assessment and still do not," the British source said.

"That's what we felt in 2003. So (our concern) goes back to then. We're still not convinced and last week's developments have simply supported that skepticism."

COMMENT:  There is widespread suspicion that the American assessment was politically motivated.  It is hard to believe that Iran is developing medium- and long-range missiles, which it clearly is doing, to deliver conventional explosives.  That's an awfully expensive small bang. 

France also ridicules the American assessment.  The leaks are coming.  And they are likely to continue, especially if Obama continues his weak policies.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

MORE THUMBS DOWN - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  A week of mingling and talking at that great student government known as the United Nations hasn't done a thing for President Obama's poll numbers.

In fact, a new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows that those who strongly approve of Obama's performance are at the lowest level since September 7th.  Only 28% strongly approve, while 39% strongly disapprove.

In overall approval, the president stands at 49%, as opposed to 51% who disapprove. 

This is a poll of likely voters, with all polling taking place after the announcement on Friday of the secret Iranian nuclear plant.  The American people apparently aren't rallying 'round the flag flown by this president. 

September 30, 2009   Permalink 

FADING LIBERALISM? - 9:51 P.M. ET:  What always strikes me is the way liberals cooperate in their own destruction.  From the ignoring of the crime issue in the 1960s to the contempt for national defense in the decades since, liberals seem willing to do so much, in their warm, cozy way, to win the loving contempt of the American people.  And they destroy other liberals who don't go along with the leftist party line, especially those liberals, like Joe Lieberman, who care about defending the country.

But is the liberal hour passing?  Some poll results show, as Byron York points out, that it may be:

A new Gallup poll shows a sharp increase in the number of people who say they want the government to promote "traditional values."
Gallup's question was simple: "Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?" In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.

Here is the trend:

Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent.

This reinforces what Frank Luntz told our group yesterday - that traditional values still rank strongly with the American people. 

...Gallup writes. "The results by party and ideology…suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican party."

Again, we see that great opportunity opening for Republicans, if only they can seize it. 

And we also see that independents are turning against the current regime, something picked up in other polls:

The recent change in favor of traditional values has been most pronounced among independents, among whom Gallup says there has been a "dramatic turnaround." Last year, independents were overwhelmingly in favor, by 55 percent to 37 percent, of the government not favoring any set of values. In the new survey, those numbers are almost reversed, with 54 percent saying the government should promote traditional values and 40 percent saying it should not.

York's conclusion:

The Gallup numbers also suggest that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have fundamentally misread their own victories. Did voters elect Democrats because they desperately wanted national health care? Sprawling and expensive environmental regulation? Federal deficits triple the size of just a few years ago? No. The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans. Now Bush and the GOP are gone and out of power. Democrats are doing what they thought the voters wanted. And it turns out the voters didn’t want that at all.

COMMENT:  York, I think, fundamentally gets it right.  The revulsion toward President Bush and the GOP was largely a creature, I believe, of the national press.  The Republicans must learn what Ronald Reagan practiced - the ability to speak over the heads of the pressmen, directly to the American people. 

The values debate is heading in our direction.  But the trend must be turned into electoral victory next year, and that means good candidates, a good platform and well-run campaigns that defy the media.  We must not depend on public opinion polls to boost our morale.  Only numbers on election day can do that.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

AREN'T YOU EXCITED? - AT 8:28 A.M. ET:  We're only one day away from President Obama's trip to Copenhagen to snare the Olympics for the incorruptible, peaceful city of Chicago.

Oh, wait, that's another story.  Roll it back.  We're only one day away from the Obama administration's first big meeting with Iran.  You'd think, by all the hype, that it's the first time since the overthrow of the Shah in the late 70s that we've met with the Iranians.  But the great Michael Ledeen points out what a farce that notion is:

The Obama administration's talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that "every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed."

And yet, although we're now dealing with the toughest, most ideological gang in Iran since the Shah's departure, the Obamans think they can part the waters.  Today health care, tomorrow Iran.

Ledeen points out something journalists seem to have forgotten:

Most recently, the administration of George W. Bush—invariably and falsely described as being totally unwilling to talk to the mullahs—negotiated extensively with Tehran. There were scores of publicly reported meetings, and at least one very secret series of negotiations. These negotiations have rarely been described in the American press, even though they are the subject of a BBC documentary titled "Iran and the West."

At the urging of British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, the U.S. negotiated extensively with Ali Larijani, then-secretary of Iran's National Security Council. By September 2006, an agreement had seemingly been reached. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nicholas Burns, her top Middle East aide, flew to New York to await the promised arrival of an Iranian delegation, for whom some 300 visas had been issued over the preceding weekend. Mr. Larijani was supposed to announce the suspension of Iranian nuclear enrichment. In exchange, we would lift sanctions. But Mr. Larijani and his delegation never arrived, as the BBC documentary reported.

And...

Negotiations have always been accompanied by sanctions. But neither has produced any change in Iranian behavior.

Ledeen, reflecting the knowledge and common sense that has always marked his position, prescribes the only tactic, short of war, that can work:

Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.

And yet, when the democracy movement erupted recently in Tehran, the president of the United States took days to wander up to a microphone and announce, meekly, that, yeah, democracy was nice.  That was the extent of the support.

We're on a slow boat to nowhere.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA'S STYLE - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  There's a lot of chatter on the internet about Obama's governing style, especially the manner in which he's approaching decisions on Afghanistan.  Michael Gerson reports in the Washington Post, for example, that some military men are impressed by the president's deliberate approach to military decisions.  Others fret that the debate is too public, allowing an enemy to try to influence the outcome by sudden, violent actions.

We would be well to remember the advice that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's father, also a general, gave him - that councils of war breed defeatism.  People sit around and talk, and talk, and talk, and, by the time they've finished, they've intellectualized the problem to death, figuring out everything that could go wrong, and becoming hesitant and discouraged.

Obama's deliberate style doesn't impress me at all.  I find it ahistorical and dangerous.  Great leaders understand that war is, by definition, a calculated risk.  As the military says, all planning is obsolete on first contact with the enemy, for the enemy also has a brain, and will do everything to wreck our best-laid plans.  Great leaders make the best decisions they can, find the best people they can, give those people the resources they need, and let them do their job, always knowing that there can be bad days as well as good. 

Great leaders also have an objective, and are relentless in pursuing it.  Lincoln went through general after general before finding Grant, but he never wavered in his goal.

And great leaders believe in the nobility of winning. "In war," MacArthur said, "there is no substitute for victory."   Obama, by contrast, has a visceral dislike for the word.  Maybe he thinks it's too macho or too American.

Finally, great leaders understand the need to lead and inspire their nation toward the ultimate goal, even in the face of ridicule.  Churchill, as Edward R. Murrow pointed out, mobilized the English language and hurled it at the enemy.  But when the leader believes that he is above his nation, better and wiser, he ignores the need to lead, and withdraws into his own wonderfulness.

Which is why Barack Obama can never be a great leader.

September 30, 2009   Permalink

TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 29,  2009

INCREDIBLE - AT 11:42 P.M. ET:  Does the Obama State Department have any concept of reality?  Does it understand why some people, even in European governments, are laughing at the United States?  Consider this, from the Jerusalem Post:

The United States is looking for Iran to disclose details of its nuclear program, provide access to facilities and personnel and otherwise take concrete steps to show it is serious about complying with international demands at Thursday's landmark meeting between the countries - though American officials characterized the parley as the beginning of a long process rather than a one-time occurrence.

Huh?  A long process?  Didn't we just hear last week that Iran has to satisfy our demands by December?  Or is that another one of Obama's phony deadlines, like all the others?

"What we're looking for here is a meeting that leads to a process that leads to a resolution of the concerns that we have...

A process that leads to a resolution of the concerns...  The Europeans have been negotiating with the Iranians for seven years, with no result.  And we're looking for...  Look, the Iranians have already announced that they won't even discuss the issues that concern us. 

"...That process will take some time, and we're not going to make a snap judgment on Thursday," US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, two days before the talks set to take place in Geneva, which he indicated could be the first of several.

Snap judgment?  Don't we have...uh...some evidence already?  The idea that such a phrase - snap judgment - would even be used, shows how out of touch these State guys are.

"We don't think that these issues will be solved in one meeting. I don't think that we'll get the full perspective of Iran's willingness to engage in one meeting," he said.

Knowing the Obama crowd, they'll probable schedule a year of exploratory meetings, just to show how decent, kind and culturally sensitive they are.

The lack of urgency is appalling.  But looking back on Obama's career, we can't say we weren't warned.

September 29, 2009   Permalink

LUNTZ - AT 9:48 P.M. ET:  As I mentioned earlier, I went to a talk today by Frank Luntz, whom you've probably seen on TV or heard on radio.  He's one of the best public opinion analysts working today, and is a conservative.  Among the highlights of today's talk:

- Americans now see health care as a fundamental right. 

- While Americans are pessimistic about the country's future, they retain a very sound set of core American values.

- The Republican Party has great opportunities, but has a major liability:  It is seen as the "no" party, the party that simply rejects things, but has no program of its own.  That must be corrected.  (We've been saying that here, as well.)

- The audience for both CNN and MSNBC has collapsed, while Fox is soaring.  Luntz said that MSNBC has more letters in its name than viewers, and that Great MSNBC Hope Keith Olbermann has seen his ratings almost cut in half.

- Political organizations must learn the power of the visual.  Obama's campaign learned it, McCain's did not.  It is what people see that counts.  Luntz used political ads as an example, cautioning the audience never to buy an ad if it uses a voiceover.  The best political ads, he said, feature someone on camera doing the talking.  Then the audience has someone to relate to, and someone to believe.

Luntz told a great story about appearing on Bill Maher's cable comedy show.  Luntz asked the audience how many believe in God.  There was a smattering of applause.  Then he asked how many were agnostics or atheists.  There were loud cheers.  The producer of the show was furious because Luntz had exposed the audience for what it was - radical.  However, Luntz cautioned us that audiences for shows like that are not typical of the country, and should not be seen as such.

COMMENT:  The entertainment industry today is so warped that much of it is outside the mainstream.  The story about the Maher audience did not surprise me.  I once heard a well-known Hollywood agent attack a true story about a family that had lost its fireman father on 9-11, and then sent a son to West Point to serve in wartime.  The agent's reaction:  "These are the people who elected BUSH!"  I had no idea what country he was living in.

September 29, 2009   Permalink 

SARKOZY:  NO BAMA - AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  One of the more startling developments recently has been the public criticism that President Obama is getting from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  The idea that France would move to the right of America takes some getting used to, but get used to it.  From The Wall Street Journal, which reports that both Britain and France wanted disclosure of Iran's new secret nuclear plant to be made at the UN last week, for maximum effect, not in Pittsburgh, at the G-20:

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

And...

...the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.

"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.

French leaders have traditionally excoriated Americans for being too belligerent, not "soft" enough.  This is exactly the opposite.

"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."

We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.

COMMENT:  Of course, this got little attention in the mainstream media, which is nostalgic for the days of Jacques Chirac, that great friend of all our fifty states.  But Sarkozy is clearly saying what others in Europe are thinking.  And Europe is moving to the right.

September 29, 2009   Permalink

AFGHAN STALL - AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  I was speaking with a military expert earlier today who was livid over President Obama's trip to Copenhagen Thursday to pitch the Olympics for Chicago.  This man, a retired British officer, made the point that our soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan while the president is delaying decisions on that war and worrying about his home city's athletic future.  The resentment is growing, as Fox News reports:

Is this any way to run a war?

Critics are lambasting President Obama for hitting the pause button on the war in Afghanistan, making U.S. commanders seeking thousands more troops there wait for a decision as he tries to get the "strategy right first."

"The commander in chief is the commander in chief, period," said retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "You can't fight a war from Washington D.C. There's only one way this works: You have trust and confidence in the leaders on the ground, or you don't."

Some critics are going so far as to ask whether Obama is more concerned with finding a political strategy to ensure his re-election than he is in finding a military strategy to win the eight-year war.

That question has been raised after Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top general in Afghanistan, revealed Sunday that he has spoken to the president only once since he took command in May.

"It is nutty," said Bing West, a former Marine and defense official in the Reagan administration. "Obama is stuck with his war of necessity yet he can't bring himself to face the fact he doesn't even know his commander in the field!"

COMMENT:  Don't be shocked if this attitude spreads.  We've written several times here of the possibility of a military revolt.  That doesn't mean a coup, obviously.  We've never had that.  But at various times in our history, like the late forties, elements of the military have made known their displeasure with an administration.  That could be risky for Obama, as the military is one of the most respected institutions in American society.

The outrage is growing, in part, because Obama announced a new strategy only in March.  Now he says that, before committing more troops, he wants to consider whether the strategy is right.  Isn't this what he should have been doing every day?  Isn't he commander-in-chief? 

As we pointed out earlier today, even some liberal columnists are questioning Obama's governing style.  The belief that he is some religious figure come to save us doesn't have quite the same constituency as earlier in the year.

September 29, 2009   Permalink 

PUBLIC OPTION SET BACK - AT 6:50 P.M. ET:  The so-called "public option," creating, in effect, a government health-insurance program, suffered a serious setback in a Senate committee today:

WASHINGTON — After a half-day of animated debate, the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday rejected efforts by liberal Democrats to add a government-run health insurance plan to major health care legislation, dealing the first official setback to an idea that many Democrats, including President Obama, say they support.

All of the other versions of the health care legislation advancing in Congress — a bill approved by the Senate health committee and a trio of bills in the House — include some version of the government-run plan, or public option.

But the Finance Committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, long ago removed it from his proposal because of stiff opposition from Republicans who call the public plan a step toward “socialized medicine.”

COMMENT:  This does not kill the public option idea, but it sets it back.  A House bill will almost certainly contain a public option, and will have to be reconciled with a Senate bill. 

A word of caution:  Killing the public option, if that happens, does not mean that Americans love insurance companies.  I went to a talk by pollster Frank Luntz (a conservative) today, and he stressed that point in discussing polling results on health care.  Insurance companies are disliked, and conservatives must proceed with care, politically, by providing a health-care alternative of their own, not simply embracing "private" companies. 

September 29, 2009   Permalink

STUNNING - AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  There have been some stunning columns in recent days from liberal writers severely criticizing President Obama over his governing style.  First, there was Howard Fineman at Newsweek.  Now there is Richard Cohen in the Washington Post.  Is this the start of a defection?  I'm not sure.  This duo is certainly not going to support a Republican candidate for president in our or any other lifetime.  But what if Obama really falters, and Hillary Clinton resigns, and polls show a tough ride for Obama in 2012, and...hmm.  Cohen:

Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.

Ouch!  That one burnt.  And it's so reassuring to see a liberal actually use the term "commander-in-chief" and not sneer.

Cohen skewers Obama over his handling of Iran:

For a crisis such as this, the immense prestige of the American presidency ought to be held in reserve. Let the secretary of state issue grave warnings. When Obama said in Pittsburgh that Iran is "going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice," it had the sound of an ultimatum. But what if the Iranians don't? What then? A president has to be careful with such language. He better mean what he says.

The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

And Cohen notes that Obama gave Congress an August deadline on health care, then let it slip by.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

COMMENT:  We'll watch to see if other liberal commentators go in that direction.  One thing is clear, though, and that is that Obama's grip on the throne is slipping.  When a liberal president gets kicked by Fineman and Cohen, that's news.  If Hillary decides to walk next year, as we've speculated she might, that's giant news. 

Stay tuned.  Obama may be attending the 2016 Olympics in Chicago as a spectator.

September 29, 2009   Permalink

LUNTZ SEES AN ANGRY AMERICA - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  I'll be going to a Hudson New York meeting today to hear Frank Luntz speak about the surveys and soundings he takes around the country.

We get a preview in Luntz's piece for the Los Angeles Times.  He sees an angry, frustrated country.  The picture is alarming, and no valentine to Barack Obama's leadership:

Today, Americans are boiling mad, and the elites from Washington to Wall Street to West Hollywood don't get it. It can best be summarized by 12 short words bellowed by Howard Beale, the deranged TV anchor in the movie "Network": "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

The frightening reality is that where there was hope, now there is cynicism. Where there were dreams, now there is disillusion. Instead of courage and resolve, I hear blame and finger-pointing.

According to my research, 72% of Americans agree with Howard Beale -- they really are "mad as hell." Second, 57% now believe that their children will inherit a worse America than they did, and just 33% believe their children will have a better quality of life than they have.

But at least their children will get to sing songs of praise for Dear Leader in their elementary schools.  Hey, that's something.

Americans in the unhappy majority are struggling to keep their jobs as million-dollar bonuses are being awarded at companies their tax dollars bailed out. They're watching Congress showcase the partisan spectacle we now blithely confuse with "government." They have learned (with good reason) to distrust their leaders, their institutions and even their own positive values in a culture that has turned coarse and critical.

And Luntz believes the public mood is reflected in the town meetings we've seen all over the country.

The elites under attack complain that rowdy town halls are bad for civic discourse and democracy. But I contend that their empty dismissals of grass-roots anger are much more dangerous.

If you talk in depth to self-described angry Americans -- as I have -- you don't hear raving demands or reckless hate. What you hear is fear.

But you also hear a belief in American values that many thought were lost. An incredible 88% believe in the adage "live free or die." Conversely, just 35% agree with the statement, "I want it all, and I want it now," and a slight majority (54%) believe "if it feels good, do it." It's nice to know that freedom beats obtaining more stuff.

We remain a great and exceptional people, even if the president doesn't believe it.

If those in power shut up and listen, they'll hear what I'm hearing. It's time to heed the anger and reinforce the positive values behind it.

COMMENT:  Hear that, conservatives?  Reinforce the positive values behind it - with constructive policies and programs that Americans will support, in their lives and at the polls next year.

September 29, 2009   Permalink

THE USUAL SUSPECTS - AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  Maybe we should stop calling them our "intelligence" services.  The New York Times is reporting that the United States is the odd man out, again, in evaluating intelligence coming from Iran.  No, I don't mean that we're more hawkish, more concerned.  I mean exactly the obvious.  From The New York Times.  Airsickness pills required:

The Israelis, who have delivered veiled threats of a military strike, say they believe that Iran has restarted these “weaponization” efforts, which would mark a final step in building a nuclear weapon. The Germans say they believe that the weapons work was never halted. The French have strongly suggested that independent international inspectors have more information about the weapons work than they have made public.

Meanwhile, in closed-door discussions, American spy agencies have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort — a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

I don't, obviously, have independent information on this.  But for the United States to take the most optimistic point of view, given Iran's continued defiance, and the announcement last week of a secret Iranian nuclear site, seems foolhardy.

Some justify the American hesitation by pointing to what they inevitably call the "catastrophically wrong" intelligence on Iraqi WMDs before the Iraq War.  That's an absurd position that misreads what we actually did find.  Yes, it's true, that we didn't find stockpiles of WMD, but we did indeed find the programs, ready to be restarted once the U.N. sanctions on Iraq were lifted.  They were due to be lifted in 2003.  One can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would have today had we not relieved him of his responsibilities. 

There is this cautionary note from one of America's most distinguished experts on nuclear weapons, on the revealing of the "secret" Iranian nuclear site:

Graham Allison, the author of “Nuclear Terrorism” and a Harvard professor who focuses on proliferation, said he could not conceive of Iran’s building only one such site.

“How likely is it that the Qum facility is all there is? Zero. A prudent manager of a serious program would certainly have a number of sites,” he said.

After all, Mr. Allison said, the lesson Iran took away from Israel’s destruction of an Iraqi reactor more than 25 years ago is to spread facilities around the country.

COMMENT:  The dragging by our intelligence services only plays into the hands of the super-doves around Obama and in Congress.  Meanwhile, some of the Europeans are getting to the right of us on Iran.  What humiliation.

September 29, 2009   Permalink 

IS THIS EMBARRASSING, OR WHAT? - AT 7:54 A.M. ET  - I guess the big news of the day, in Chicago at least, is that President Obama will go to Copenhagen Thursday to pitch Chicago for the 2016 Olympics.  We assume, of course, that by then Chicago will have done something about the shooting gallery that exists around many of its schools, specifically schools in the very part of the city where our (absolutely accomplished) first lady grew up.  The Chicago Examiner puts it this way:

Curiously, Obama had different priorities on Sept. 17 when he said First Lady Michelle Obama would go to Copenhagen in his stead: "I would make the case in Copenhagen personally, if I weren't so firmly committed to making real the promise of quality affordable health care for every American." What has changed since Sept. 17? Why is the president now taking it upon himself to persuade the International Olympic Committee to award an event with global prestige and worth untold billions of dollars to a city whose governing establishment virtually defines political corruption?

And, when enterprising journalists crunched the numbers...

Reasonable people familiar with Chicago history know there must be more to this story than mere civic pride. A look at the finances of the bid ought to scare the dickens out of hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere. Chicago's proposed operating budget totals $3.8 billion, but, as Crain's Chicago Business pointed out in a scathing editorial, the plan only includes insurance for $1.1 billion. There's nothing in the budget to cover the possibility that private sector donors won't contribute the $1 billion needed to construct an Olympic Village. And what about cost overruns, which in Chicago, Crain's notes, have a lurid history of "coming in at two or three times estimates." Federal stimulus funds perhaps? That would be the Chicago way.

COMMENT:  If Chicago wins, and The One has a way of charming international organizations, get set to open your wallets.  You'll be paying the tab, but Oprah will get a chance to do her show from the pole-vaulting pit.

September 29,  2009   Permalink