SUNDAY,  MARCH 2,  2008

THE MIDEAST ON THE BRINK

There's just not enough attention being paid to the increasing combat between Israel and Hamas.  This could explode into major military action any day. 

The UN is showing some small interest.  The European Union, of course, is condemning Israel for "disproportionate" use of force.  Tell me, when has a nation restricted itself to "proportionate" use of force?  I thought the idea of warfare was to win.  Maybe I was misinformed.  But, when we were defeating the Germans and the Japanese, did we suddenly announce, "We must stop using so many planes and building so many ships.  It's so...so disproportionate.  What will the neighbors say?"

Yeah, right.  But maybe we should consult with Field Marshal Obama. 

Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, trying to recover from a reputation tarnished during Israel's inconclusive war in Lebanon in 2006, is talking tough about the future:

"We will operate with the timing and might of our choice against the terror organizations. We will act against those who dispatch the terrorists and those who perpetrate the attacks, according to the decisions and assessments of the government," he said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.

"If someone has an illusion for one moment that by increasing the range of rocket attacks he will restrict the counter-terror operations, he is grossly mistaken," he said, pledging, "Israel has no intention of stopping the fight against them [the terrorists] for one moment."

Regarding the across-the-board condemnation, including from the UN Security Council, of the IDF operations that have reportedly killed some 80 Palestinians since Wednesday, the prime minister said: "I cannot recall those who are criticizing us saying how unbearable the situation is in southern Israel when Israeli citizens are hurt. They must remember that Israel will defend its citizens in the South."

There hasn't been much criticism from Washington.  If major combat erupts during our election campaign, it could throw off all predictions.  It could also put the Democratic candidate into an impossible position - support Israel and alienate the radical left wing in the party's base, or go into vagueness mode and antagonize the pro-Israel bloc.  Not a happy situation.

WELL, IT'S CLOSER THAN THE IVY LEAGUE

The esteemed president of Iran is visiting Iraq, but not all Iraqis have the "Hi, Mahmoud!" signs out.  Some are protesting:

Baghdad, 29 Feb.(AKI) - A group of Iraqi citizens has been protesting for two consecutive days in the capital Baghdad, ahead of the visit on Saturday by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad's two-day state visit will be the first by an Iranian president since the Iranian Revolution and the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.

The visit could mark a shift in ties between the former enemy countries, whose 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war killed an estimated 1 million plus people.

The protesters, standing in front of a mosque in Baghdad, handed out pamphlets which read "Iraq is not for sale".

Good for the protesters.  Good for the Iraqi government for allowing the protests.  Not so good for the Iraqi leaders who permitted this visit.  Sends the wrong message to the U.S., and to the dissidents in Iran.  We'll watch this situation closely.  We have much invested in Iraq, and we should have some say in these matters.

THE OBAMA WATCH, CONT'D

I've been critical of David Ignatius, of The Washington Post, for appearing to be in the tank for Barack Obama.  But now Ignatius surprises us with a tough, and excellent, analysis of Obama's claim to be a bridge builder.  He finds it bogus:

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles in the past. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines, but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun-control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as "gutless." One Chicago pol says that "the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone."

It doesn't get any better:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't entirely bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

In other words, the most powerful nation in history might, come November, elect a blank slate to the most important post in the world. 

That's not change anyone should believe in.

HAGEL?  IS THIS SERIOUS?

The Brits once again come through with some of the best reporting on Senator Obama.  What's getting reported does not fill me with joy.  Apparently, a certain Republican senator is being seriously considered for defense secretary if Obama goes to the White House:

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

Hagel?  Did someone say Hagel?  Chuck Hagel has been one of the Senate's most outspoken foes of the Iraq war.  What would it mean to our men and women in Iraq if he were to be made king of the Pentagon?  It would mean that the man they report to doesn't even believe in their mission, and never did. 

Is this a way to treat our troops?  Has Obama thought about that?  Or is it just a way to stick it to Bush? 

Will someone in Obama's camp do some thinking please.  It's time.

MICHELLE, DON'T CALL THE DECORATOR JUST YET

Michael Goodwin, a solid New York columnist with considerable common sense, urges just a bit of modesty on the Democrats.  He reminds them who's on the other side in the coming campaign, and offers some sound advice:

This will come as a shock to throngs of delirious Democrats, but the winner of the party's nomination does not automatically become President. There will be - repeat, will be - a general election. And John McCain is already showing he is going to be one tough opponent.

With their party's huge primary turnouts and record-shattering contributions, many Dems act as though the survivor of the showdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wins a cakewalk to the White House. There is talk of a landslide and big gains in Congress.

The prevailing sentiment is not that the GOP is weak. It's that the GOP is dead.
McCain, the aging, craggy-faced warrior, begs to differ. As if to remind swing voters he knows a thing or two about elections, he unleashed a series of hard-hitting attacks on Obama last week. If his punches didn't get Obama's attention, the Dem front-runner is deep in denial.

Goodwin goes on to point out that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is warning about just the kind of quick withdrawal from Iraq that both Obama and Clinton are proposing:

The comments confirm a point I noted before, that both Clinton and Obama are vulnerable to charges their Iraq withdrawal plans are being made without any advice from the active military. Because they have accused President Bush of listening only to advice he wants to hear, they are setting themselves up for the same criticism. If one of them becomes President, he or she will take office with the top military man, Mullen, warning against keeping the withdrawal promise.

Then what? Ignore him and take the huge risk he is right? Or listen to him and break the withdrawal promise?

The real world - so complicated, so unfair, so...so real.  Who will tell Michelle?

I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ACADEMY - IF IT REALLY EXISTS

What gets into the heads of these actors and actresses?  Well, probably nothing, and that's the problem.  Here's an actress who should have a splendid future.   She just won an Oscar. Everyone is talking about her. She had a chance to bask in the glow. But then she opened her mouth:

Actress Marion Cotillard sparked a political row yesterday after accusing America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks.

The 32-year-old French actress, who received an Oscar last month for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, openly questioned the truth behind the terrorist atrocity in an interview broadcast on a French website.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends.

Referring to the two passenger jets being flown into the Twin Towers, Cotillard said:

"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? They [sic] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

She added that the towers, planned in the early Sixties, were an outdated "money-sucker" that would have cost more to modernise than to rebuild altogether, which is why they were destroyed.

She said: "It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to re-cable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them."

Cotillard's stardom and increased earning power looked assured following her Oscar win.

But after her outburst, in which she also queried the 1969 Moon landings, a successful future in Hollywood appears to be in jeopardy.

I would certainly hope so.

But look, she has a future.  She could write for Hugo Chavez, or act in Iranian religious films.  They always need people, and I'm sure she wouldn't charge much. 

GENTLE DENMARK

I've always liked Denmark. It's a kindly, gentle place. And we see today that even its crimes have a Danish gentleness about them. Consider this caper, and please salute the civility of it all:

An 80-year-old German-born man was placed in protective custody in Denmark on Friday for robbing a bank with a water pistol after his bank refused to let him repay an account overdraft in installments, police said. The German man, who has lived in Denmark for nearly 50 years, walked into a Sydbank branch in the western town of Viborg on Thursday wearing dark glasses and carrying a cane. Pointing a water gun at the teller, he politely asked her to give him a bit of money. "Don't worry," he said, according to media reports. "I don't shoot people."

Even the Germans know to be polite in Denmark.  Someone should teach French actresses to be polite in America.

And, water pistol in belt, I'll be back tonight.

Posted on March 2, 2008.