SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments is here. 

BARACK OBAMA'S FIRST HUNDRED DAYS continues here.  An archive containing the days already posted is here. 

----------------------------------------------

Answers to last week's "current question" are here.  The new "current question" is here, on the right.

---------------------------------------------

We'll have several subscription drives a year, but readers can subscribe at any time.  Subscriptions are voluntary and are critically important to sustaining Urgent Agenda.  The subscription panel is on the right.

-----------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY:  JULY 24,  2008

Posted at  7:15 a.m. ET

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Am I reading the calendar correctly?  Is it 2008...or 1962?

There's a running story that could turn out to be remarkably important:

HAVANA (AFP) — Fidel Castro said Havana owed no apologies to Washington over reports that Russia might start flying long-range bombers to Cuba, and warned that his country "had nerves of steel in times of genocide".

It was the first official comment from the Americas' only one-party communist government since a US general responded to a report in a Russian newspaper, warning Russia against basing nuclear-capable bombers in Cuba.

"What we need are nerves of steel in times of genocide, and Cuba has them. The United States knows that," he wrote, in what appeared to be a reference to previous Cold War era confrontations between the two countries.

The flights, although they have not yet been officially announced by Moscow, have already sparked tensions reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s.

The ailing Fidel Castro, 81, who in February handed over power to his 77-year-old brother Raul, made his comments in a letter to cubadebate.cu on Wednesday.

"Raul did just the right thing by maintaining appropriate silence on statements published Monday July 21 by Izvestia, related to potential installation of strategic Russian bomber bases in our country," he wrote.

Fidel Castro said the news arose from "hypotheses developed in Russia due to Yankee (US) stubbornness about the idea of setting up radar and a missile shield near the border of that great power."

US General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff, said in Washington Tuesday that if Russia "did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America."

Let us, first of all, hope that Condi Rice doesn't immediately undercut Gen. Schwartz.  The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 has been an embarrassment to Moscow for almost half a century.  Those in power in the Kremlin would love to stick it to the U.S., especially at a time of great vulnerability for this country - the end of a weakened president's term, and the possible election of an untested senator with leftist proclivities.  I would hope that the secretary of state, who has been doing her best to restore the foreign policy of Bush 41, would understand the need for firmness.

The key month for the Missile Crisis was October of 1962, just before a mid-term election.  It is pure speculation, of course, but it would be great mischief for the Russians to provoke a new crisis over Cuba just before this year's presidential choice is made.  Conventional wisdom is that this would help McCain, who is perceived as tougher and more seasoned in the crisis business.  Don't be so sure.  The Missile Crisis occurred before Vietnam, before Iraq, before the press had become casually leftist.  How the Kremlin reads American opinion, and the polls, may determine how the old instigators act. 

July 24, 2008.      Permalink          

GRAYING LADY

The New York Times is called the gray lady of journalism, largely because its news-filled front page gives off a grayish aura.  But the gray lady these days seems ready for the rest home, or worse.  "The old gray mare," as the song goes, "she ain't what she used to be."

The Washington Times takes on this week's Times horror story, in which an op-ed editor, who'd worked in the Clinton White House, turned down John McCain's op-ed submission, even though the paper published Obama's just last week:

On July 14, the NYT published an op-ed by Barack Obama explaining his security plan for Iraq, in which he argued in favor of removing U.S. combat troops by the summer of 2010, while leaving a much smaller residual force in place. At the same time, Mr. Obama proposed sending at least two additional combat brigades to support the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

Fair enough - that's what an Op-Ed Page is for.

But...

Unfortunately, the NYT failed to give the same courtesy to John McCain when his campaign staff attempted to submit an op-ed (which we reprint today on our op-ed page) in response to Mr. Obama's submission. When Michael Goldfarb, a member of Mr. McCain's staff, drafted an essay explaining the Arizona senator's position on these issues, it was rejected by NYT op-ed page editor David Shipley. Mr. Shipley e-mailed Mr. Goldfarb that the Obama op-ed "worked for me" because "it offered new information" and because the senator "went into detail about his own plans." Then, Mr. Shipley (a speechwriter in the Clinton White House) told Mr. Goldfarb that an acceptable op-ed from Mr. McCain "would have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory - with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

The Washington Times makes a point that should be tacked up over the desk of every New York Times editor and reporter:

Mr. McCain is a sitting U.S. senator and a candidate for president of the United States. He is not an undergraduate at some military school who submitted a term paper on some narrowly defined subject area chosen by his professor. Mr. McCain should have been accorded the same respect as Mr. Obama - unless, of course, Mr. Obama tossed his own principles aside and wrote his op-ed to conform to NYT positions.

Well said.  The Times missed a chance for an intelligent debate on its op-ed page, and is the lesser paper for it.  The Times is in a difficult financial position, and I've believed for some time that this is less a result of the internet or the economy than the result of a growing belief that the paper is no longer seen as a necessity.  A statement like that would have been heresy at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to which I refer in another story this morning.  Now I'm afraid it's true.

July 24, 2008.      Permalink          

GUSHER

All right, now let's be completely fair. The Times still does some fine reporting, and publishes an example this morning.  In the midst of all the angst over our energy problems, and the insistence of the Rev. Al Gore that the solutions must be pure of soul and green in color, it turns out that some of the old-fashioned stuff is readily at hand:

The Arctic may contain as much as a fifth of the world’s yet to-be-discovered oil and natural gas reserves, the United States Geological Survey said Wednesday as it unveiled the largest-ever survey of petroleum resources north of the Arctic Circle.

Oil companies have long suspected that the Arctic contained substantial energy resources, and have been spending billions recently to get their hands on tracts for exploration. As melting ice caps have opened up prospects that were once considered too harsh to explore, a race has begun among Arctic nations, including the United States, Russia, and Canada, for control of these resources.

The geological agency’s survey largely vindicates the rising interest. It suggests that most of the yet-to-be found resources are not under the North Pole but much closer to shore, in regions that are not subject to territorial dispute.

And...

At today’s consumption rate of 86 million barrels a day, the potential oil in the Arctic could meet global demand for almost three years. The Arctic’s potential natural gas resources are three times bigger. That equals Russia’s proven gas reserves, which is the world’s largest.

The agency called the Arctic region “the largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on earth.”

There will surely be emergency services held in the Church of the Global Warming today, in response to these words from The Devil.  "Demon oil!  Demon oil!  Heal, you SUV sinners!"

The fact is, of course, that ours will be an oil-based economy for decades to come, no matter what new sources of energy are developed.  Exploring potential gushers can, over time, ease the financial pain caused by high oil prices, contribute to taming inflation, and ease the transition to new technology.  Not a bad deal.  Unless you spend your time bemoaning the tastes of the masses while dining out in Aspen.

July 24, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY EVENING POST:  JULY 23,  2008

Posted at 7:16 p.m. ET

HISTORY LESSON

I expressed by admiration, two stories down, for Tony Blankley's knowledge of history.  Michael Ledeen is another writer, and scholar, whose study of history makes him especially valuable as a guide to our policy on Iran.  Here he examines what might be called the cult of negotiations, and how it is weakening us before the rollicking mullahs of Teheran:

Henry Kissinger once remarked that if an intellectual gets it wrong, all he has to do is write another book, while if a policy maker gets it wrong, people may die. To which I would add that our pundits have learned that they don’t have to pay any attention to getting the past right; they can ignore it. Hardly anyone bothers with history, so the scribblers simply look at the headlines and think as deeply as they can. And so, in all the commentary on the latest “negotiating” fiasco with Iran, I look in vain for someone who points out that we have just witnessed the umpteenth iteration of Western diplomats getting kicked in a tender spot by the mullahs. Nothing new at all. But nobody seems to know that. They think it’s all about these Americans, or these Iranians, these Brits and these French. Not so. It’s part of a well established pattern. And to make matters worse, our leaders don’t seem to know that, either.

Well said, as usual.  More:

After all, every president from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush sooner or later become convinced that it is possible to strike a grand bargain with the mullahs, if only we could find the right formula...

We just won’t accept the fact that Iran is at war with us. From time to time I ask an audience: “you’ve all seen demonstrations organized by the regime in Iran, thousands of people in the streets, chanting ‘death to America,’ right?” And they agree, yes, they have seen it. And then I ask them, “what do you think they mean? Is it some subtle nuanced message to us, or what?”

They’ve been trying to kill us since 1979, and yet we still think we are one little clever move away from the Grand Bargain. We’re not. They don’t want a bargain, they want to destroy us. And they will keep at it until they have either won or lost.

Finally...

They have plenty of willing allies in the scribbling community. Thus, Elaine Sciolino, of the New York Times, commenting on the BS the Iranians provided the Western diplomats:

The Iranian document, which has not been made public, offered a snapshot of Iran’s negotiating style. It put the burden on the other parties. Its imprecise language and misspellings were in sharp contrast to the rigorous approach by Iranian negotiators, many of them career diplomats, who were in charge in 2003 when France, Britain and Germany began the initiative of incentives in exchange for suspension of major nuclear activities. Those diplomats have since been replaced.

Yeah, those more disciplined spellers were a lot better, weren’t they? They kicked us with good grammar.

The key issue here is not whether Ledeen is "right" or "wrong."  The key is that, based on the evidence, there is a credible chance that he's right.  Even if there's doubt, the wise leader examines the worst possible scenario, prepares for it, and prepares his nation for it.  And we don't see that happening.  Instead, what we see is another bid for "negotiations," another mass worship of the word "dialogue."  If Iran were a static nation, that might not be objectionable.  But the centrifuges keep spinning, and each day that we "look for diplomatic openings," the regime gets closer to a nuclear weapon.  There doesn't seem to be much standing in the way.

July 23, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 23,  2008

Posted at 3:15 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both our usual trackers are now out for today, showing a slight uptick for Obama.  The changes are small, and may just be statistical noise.  If Obama benefits from his current foreign tour, that would probably show up after his Reagan/Kennedy outdoor speech in Berlin later in the week, which will be the main event, with a cast of thousands. 

Rasmussen has Obama up two.   Yesterday he had the race tied.

Gallup has Obama up four.  Yesterday it was three.

The fact remains that no poll shows McCain ahead. 

If Obama expected some immediate bump from his trip, he must be disappointed.  It hasn't happened.  But he hasn't made any major, obvious mistakes either, and the press isn't exactly harassing him.  There's a calmness about the whole thing, thus far.

McCain can barely get covered, yet remains within striking distance.  Obama hasn't made the sale, and hasn't cracked 50 percent in the trackers.

July 23, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 23,  2008

Posted at 1:47 p.m. ET

HOORAY FOR..?

Tony Blankley, one of the most readable columnists around, has a few choice comments about Senator Obama's smooth tour of the immediate world.  Winston Churchill, eat your heart out:

Watching Obama glide through his foreign trip so far, nervous Republicans and other patriots have to hope that American voters will not view Obama through the eyes of a Hollywood casting director. That's because one could not cast a man who visually can portray a worldly statesman better. We all must envy his ability to effortlessly drape his tall, imperially slender form in gilded Louis XV chairs in foreign palaces. Mixing just the right combination of worldly bonhomie and serious mien, his presentation (conveniently presented to the world with video but no audio) make, by comparison, Henry Kissinger, FDR and Winston Churchill all look like clumsy provincial oafs.

Yikes. 

But...

When he does submit himself to the occasional press interview, his actual words read in print must make his handlers as nervous as his visual images make Republicans nervous. His discussion of his Iraq policy is almost incomprehensible. He has claimed that both Bush and Iraq's al-Maliki have come to his position that it is time to move our troops out of Iraq.

But in September of 2007, Obama said:

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now."

For him, now that the surge he opposed is working and victory may be around the corner, to claim that he was always right is like someone in America in 1944 opposed to the Allied D-Day invasion of Normandy claiming there is no military solution to World War II and we should bring our troops home...then the following spring, when Hitler blew his brains out, Germany surrendered and President Truman ordered our troops to be brought home systematically, bragging: "You see? I was always right. Even the president now agrees it is time to bring the troops home."

Do you get the feeling that Blankley has some doubts about Obama?  Hmm.  He also goes after Obama's notion that the main front in the war on terror lies in the Afghan/Pakistan region:

The central front is in the minds of Muslims around the world. If we lose Iraq and Islamist radicals are seen to win, we lose a strategic battle in the war -- just as in the Cold War the strategic front was not in Greece in 1947 or Berlin in 1948 or China in 1949 or Korea in 1950 or Cuba in 1962 or Vietnam in 1965 or in Eurocommunist countries in the 1970s. The central front was always the minds of men. When the idea of Soviet-style communism was defeated by Reagan, the war ended. When virtually all Muslims see terror to be a dead end to their aspirations, the war on terror will be over.

When Obama understands that, he may be ready to be deputy assistant secretary of state.

Great piece, well written.  Go read it.  Blankley knows history - many journalists don't - and he applies it superbly.

July 23, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY:  JULY 23,  2008

Posted at 7:25 a.m. ET

THE TRAVELER

Mr. Obama is in Israel, saying all the right things.  You can be sure that this part of the journey has been scripted down to the last comma.  You can also be sure he won't be quoting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Samantha Power, or Jesse Jackson.

Not much news there.  In fact, there's not much news anywhere.  July traditionally is a weak-news month.  You can tell how weak it is when the press starts writing stories about itself, or political reporters exhaust the word "may" in their stories.  This "may" happen.  Or, it "may" not.  When I worked for the CIA, I was driven crazy by the number of times the word "may" appeared in intelligence reports.  Nothing like intelligence officers hedging their bets. 

But there is one story out there that is reaching almost farcical levels.  It's become a parody of itself.  It is the European love of Barack Obama.  He will be on the continent shortly, and the anticipation makes the arrival of the Beatles in New York in 1964 almost a non-event.  In a way, you can almost taste the cynicism.  Europe's racial attitudes have never been overly generous, and supposedly liberal European societies remain liberal as long as "newcomers" don't move next door.

But, there is the hysteria, as The Politico reports:

Last week, a Pew Global Attitudes study on “Obamamania Abroad” found that while the Middle East remains skeptical — including Jordan, the candidate’s first stop there — Europe is another story altogether.

Toby Harnden, U.S. editor of the Daily Telegraph, told Politico that it’s almost as if the overwhelmingly popular Obama had been “designed by a committee of Europeans” with the goal of creating their ideal American presidential candidate.

On the surface, there’s an obvious contrast in style between Obama and President Bush, who’s had low opinion numbers across the pond long before that trend hit U.S. shores. As a result of the electorate’s disapproval of Bush, Europeans largely view Obama as a shoo-in. Wishful thinking has become conventional wisdom.

But there's an asterisk:

That said, Obama’s policy positions actually put him to the right of mainstream opinion in the European capitals of Berlin, Paris and London. Indeed, Obama’s positions on hot-button issues like gun ownership, the death penalty and increased troops in Afghanistan could slightly tarnish the nearly perfect media persona.

After visits to Jordan and Israel, where Obama walks a tightrope in fielding questions about the Middle East peace process, the candidate meets with European leaders and will take part in the trip’s only large-scale event watched by a worldwide audience. In front of Berlin’s famous Victory Column on Thursday, Obama will address a crowd that press reports estimate at anywhere from tens of thousands to upwards of a million.

How can the press estimate the size of a crowd that hasn't turned up yet?  Ah, it's the Obama effect.  If you send him, they will come.

In an effort to satisfy voracious reader appetites for all things Obama, Der Spiegel published a 6,300-word story, with the candidate adorning the cover. The font was nabbed from Germany’s version of “American Idol.”

“Europeans have fallen in love with the Democrat, mostly because he’s not Bush,” Meyer, and several Der Speigel colleagues wrote. “But they may not like what they hear this week.”

Look, I'm not entirely comfortable by anyone who achieves godlike status in Germany.  Been there, done that.

Besides glowing, rock star coverage, Meyer said that “stories are emerging slowly” on how Obama’s positions might not be in line with Europe's. For instance, when Obama spoke out in favor of the death penalty, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against capital punishment in cases of child rape, Meyer said it made the front pages in Germany.

And...

“The German press, looking from Berlin, behaves as if the election of Obama is a foregone conclusion,” said Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Zeit, a weekly German newspaper. “He’s being celebrated like a victorious Roman general who comes back from the conquest of Gaul or something.”

Whoops.  Is Germany celebrating victorious generals again?

“Basically, every single thing he does will be put under a microscope by the British press—particularly in London, but everywhere as well,” Harnden said, adding Obama will likely get, by a “conservative estimate,” about 10 times the coverage McCain received when he visited London in May.

We think we have a biased press.  Americans are generally unaware of how far to the left European and British journalism generally is.  CNN is a model of objectivity compared to European outlets, and CNN is no model of objectivity.

Europeans might have to get used to a few things:

“They will be very surprised that he is an American politician working for American interests,” Marschall said, who like other European journalists mentioned the death penalty and increasing troops in Afghanistan as major sticking points.

Yes, that old nasty sticking point of Europeans pulling their own weight in the Western alliance, and contributing more to the Afghanistan operation.  An attack against one is an attack against all says the NATO creed, but we found after 9-11 that "all" wasn't willing to do very much.

Next major foreign story:  Europe's disenchantment with the man some over there are calling "the black Kennedy."  If Europe doesn't grow disenchanted, Obama isn't doing his job. 

July 23, 2008.      Permalink          

BUSINESS AS USUAL

One thing the presumed president will have to deal with in Europe is an uneven, and sometimes reckless, attitude toward Iran.  On the one hand, Europe has joined with America in opposing the Iranian nuclear program, but, on the other, has shown little stomach for actually doing anything about it.  One reason, of course, is money.  Trade between Europe and Iran is major, and Europeans have never been known to look down on the word "profit," except in writing term papers in universities.

There is a wonderful organization operating out of Vienna called Stop the Bomb, devoted to exposing and opposing the mullah regime in Iran.  Its website is here.  I've met one of its key people, Simone Dinah Hartmann, who acts as the group's spokesperson.  She's an impressive and vigorous person, totally devoted to this cause.

Stop the Bomb has issued a chart ranking the countries of Europe in terms of their trade with Iran.  The group reports:

The most important commercial partner of Iran in Europe is Italy, followed by Turkey, that will keep its position due to a 2.25 Billion Euro deal signed last year. Germany ranks third, it might, however, be the secret European champion, conducting more and more of its commerce via third party countries.

France, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia and Greece hold further top positions. Is the trade volume calculated per capita, the current football titelholder Greece is also European champion in economically supporting the Mullah dictatorship in Iran. The host countries of the Euro 2008 do everything in their power to ascend to top positions. The Iranian regime refers to Austria as its "gateway to the European Union. OMV, Austria's biggest company listed in the stock exchange with the Austrian state holding more than 30 % of its shares, plans to enter into a 22 Billion Euro agreement with Iran. Switzerland is not just ahead of its Euro 2008 hostpartner as to football skills: The Swiss power company Laufenburg signed a deal with the Iranian Gas Export Company for a yearly delivery of 5.5 Billion cubic metres of natural gas in April 2008 with a an estimated total volume of 18 Billion Euros. For the Swiss foreign ministry Iran is “one of the most important commerce partners of Switzerland in the Middle East."

Senator Obama will be in Germany and France this week.  I hope some enterprising reporter asks him about this, and shows him the Stop the Bomb chart.  The group makes this point:

Why shouldn't countries trade with Iran, some might ask. But Iran is not just some arbitrary regime. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a an islamic dictatorship exerting domestic and international terror for almost 20 years. At the same time it is obviously developing nuclear weapons. Labour unions are banned and industrial action is put down as brutally as the students’ protest movements.

The systematic persecution of minorities like the Kurds and the Bahai, the execution of homosexuals as well as the constant repression against women that do not obey the islamic code of conduct, are main features of this regime.

Every Euro that flows to Iran can easily become part of Europe's death sentence.  Senator Obama has said he'd negotiate with Iran without preconditions.  What will he say, if anything, about strengthening the regime's economy through massive trade with Europe?

July 23, 2008.      Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel,
      late Sunday editor of
      The New York Times

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all.  Subscriptions sustain us.  We urge you to subscribe.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

FORUM?

We don't have an online forum.  We may in the future, if we can find a way to keep out escapees from anger management programs. 

But we do have...

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

The New York Times recently reported that the older, radical generation of college professors is being replaced by new, more moderate, less ideological teachers.  Assuming this is true, how do you account for the change?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

Some swear by "global warming," the Al Gore version.  Some say it's bad science, or a hoax.  What would you like to see the federal government or private groups do to settle the dispute once and for all?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker