Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

MAY 12,  2011

THE OTHER SIDE OF BRITAIN – AT 10:52 P.M. ET:  Americans love the heroic side of Britain – Winston Churchill, the Battle of Britain, even the fictional James Bond.  They don't much like, or care about, the other side – the appeasers, the apologists for evil, the anti-Americans, the politically correct loons.

British historian Andrew Roberts, pro-American and pro-Churchill, is outraged at the reaction of some of his countrymen to the biological disruption of Osama bin Laden, and he is right.  Sadly, the killing of bin Laden brought out some of the ugly old anti-Americanism in the lesser side of Britain.  From The Wall Street Journal:

I never thought I'd say this, especially less than a fortnight after the Royal Wedding, but my countrymen's reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden have made me doubt my pride in being British.

The foul outpouring of sneering anti-Americanism, legalistic quibbling, and concern for the supposed human rights of our modern Hitler have left me squirming in embarrassment and apology before my American friends. Yet what I most despise my fellow Britons for is their absolute refusal, publicly or even privately, to celebrate the most longed-for news in a decade...

....The idea that bin Laden was retreating to his bedroom in order to give himself up and ask the details of his Miranda rights is risible. Yet Britons utterly refuse to obey the natural instincts of the free-born to celebrate the death of a tyrant.

When the Mets-Phillies baseball game erupted into cheers on hearing the wonderful news, or the crowds chanted "USA! USA!" outside the White House, they were manifesting the finest emotional responses of a great people. By total contrast, when Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, told the BBC's flagship program "Question Time" last Thursday that he felt "elated" at the news, he was booed, heckled and almost shouted down.

And...

There was the lady at a cocktail party who told me "It's those gun-toting Yanks at it again." There was my son's classics teacher informing his young charges that he thought bin Laden deserved the "dignity" of a fair trial. And there was the letter about the U.S. celebrations to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph stating that terrorist cells "will be further fuelled by those inappropriate reactions by people who should have known better." How? How, Ms. Tess Hyland of Bathurst, could al Qaeda possibly hate us more than they do already?

And...

For the past five years, I've been writing a history of the Second World War, and if there is one central lesson I have taken from this study, it is that the intestinal fortitude of a people matters much more than weaponry, economics or even grand strategy...

...From Britain's pathetic and ignoble reaction to the death of our greatest ally's No.1 foe, I fear for our fortitude in the continuing war against terror. The British government in London and the British Army in Afghanistan are magnificent, but if the people themselves are shot through with what Winston Churchill called "the long, drawling, dismal tides of drift and surrender," I wonder whether we can be counted upon for much longer.

As a commentator on the Royal Wedding for NBC, I was filled with pride in my country for the precision-timing and perfect step of the Household Division, the fine behavior of the crowds, and the charm and personability of the young couple. Today all I feel is shame at my country's pathetic reaction to your own great day of joy.

COMMENT:  Read the whole thing.  It's well worth it, and a warning of what we can become if the left wing wins the American battle of ideas.  Frankly, I think we have too much common sense for that.

May 12, 2011       Permalink

CAUGHT – AT 9:32 P.M. ET:  As readers of Urgent Agenda know, Christiane Amanpour has never won a "woman of the year" award here.   I have long felt that she is wildly overrated as a journalist, and her obvious biases damaged CNN in the years she was its chief international correspondent.

But I never thought she'd do something so dumb that it confirmed all the suspicions we have had, and others have had.  But she has done thus.  A two-part Fox online series on ultra-lib billionaire George Soros and his attempts to influence journalism reveals that Christiane Amanpour sits on the board of Soros organzations:

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

The problem is, some of these "journalists" don't see it as a conflict of interest because they think they're working with "the good people," people who want to "make a difference."  It's the adolescent mantra of the sixties, brought up to date.

Among Soros front groups is something called the Center for Public Integrity.

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.

There have always been ethical problems in journalism, but the casualness with which "leading" journalists violate fundamental rules to associate themselves with leftist organizations is deeply disturbing.  It ratifies our worst suspicions, and is a terrible example for young journalists. 

I'd love to hear Amanpour give an explanation for her extracurricular activities.  I'm sure it will be delivered with her over-the-top British accent, which means that many listeners will consider it authoritative.

May 12,  2011     Permalink

OH DEAR LAWD, STOP HIM BEFORE HE SPEAKS AGAIN – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  President Obama, channeling faculty lounges all over America, is about to reveal profound thoughts on the Middle East, unless some wise adviser brings in a pizza and convinces him not to.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — For President Obama, the killing of Osama bin Laden is more than a milestone in America’s decade-long battle against terrorism. It is a chance to recast his response to the upheaval in the Arab world after a frustrating stretch in which the stalemate in Libya, the murky power struggle in Yemen and the brutal crackdown in Syria have dimmed the glow of the Egyptian revolution.

Oh, you can just see trouble coming.

Administration officials said the president was eager to use Bin Laden’s death as a way to articulate a unified theory about the popular uprisings from Tunisia to Bahrain — movements that have common threads but also disparate features, and have often drawn sharply different responses from the United States.

The first sign of this “reset” could come as early as next week, when Mr. Obama plans to give a speech on the Middle East in which he will seek to put Bin Laden’s death in the context of the region’s broader political transformation.

Another speech that will be obsolete in two days.

Still, although Bin Laden’s killing may provide a rare moment of clarity, it has less obvious implications for American strategic calculations in the region. Some administration officials argue that the heavy blow to Al Qaeda gives the United States the chance to be more forward-leaning on political change because it makes Egypt, Syria and other countries less likely to tip toward Islamic extremism.

But other senior officials note that the Middle East remains a complicated place: the death of Al Qaeda’s leader does not erase the terrorist threat in Yemen, while countries like Bahrain are convulsed by sectarian rivalries that never had much to do with Bin Laden’s radical message. The White House said it was still working through the policy implications country by country.

COMMENT:  Continue working, fellas.  And, Mr. President, there are times when it's wise to avail yourself of the Constitutional right to remain silent.  It's a wonderful right, and it feels so good after you do it, and review the speech you almost gave.

May 12, 2011       Permalink

BARONE PUNCTURES ROMNEY – AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  Politicians strive for "inevitability," to win by presenting themselves as the inevitable candidate.  Mitt Romney is doing that right now, and much of the media describes him as the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.  Michael Barone continues to insist that Romney is not.  From the Washington Examiner: 

In the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls Romney gets 16.6% and Mike Huckabee 16.4%. They’re followed by Donald Trump with 12.9%, Sarah Palin with 10.6%, Newt Gingrich with 7.7%, etc. In polls conducted in April and May Romney gets between 11% and 19%. The way I read it he’s a contender, not a front-runner. And not necessarily a strong contender: with greater name recognition than some other potential candidates he's not running far ahead of them.

But wasn’t he the runner-up in the 2008 race for the Republican nomination, and don’t Republicans always nominate the candidate who was the runner-up last time? The answer to both questions is, not necessarily. Romney got more voters than any other candidate except John McCain in the 2008 Republican caucuses and primaries. But it wasn’t a close second: McCain got 42%, Romney got 21% and Mike Huckabee got 20%. And Huckabee actually got quite a lot more delegates (270) than Romney (189). So much for the idea that Romney was the clear runner-up.

What about the tendency of docile, order-obsessed Republicans always voting for the candidate next in line? Well, I suppose the stereotype has some basis in fact. But, as I wrote in my April 26 Examiner column, there are only six cases since something like the current nominating system came into place in the 1970s of the Republicans nominating the next guy in line. And in all of these cases, I would argue, the nominee won because of other much more important factors or the nominee’s win was a very close run thing.

COMMENT:  I'm inclined to agree.  What's more, none of the candidates mentioned by the Great Mentioner inspire much enthusiasm.  Have you sensed a "wanting" of Mitt, of Huck, even of Sarah?  Are their portraits adorning the walls of fanatical supporters?  Well, maybe Sarah gets some pictures posted, but that's about it. 

It is early in the game.  Despite pressure to declare candidacy at least three decades before the election, there is still time for new people to emerge.  Beating Obama will be hard.  He is a superb campaigner, if nothing else.  Let's look at our bench.

May 12, 2011       Permalink

NEWT IS IN – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will be running for the GOP nomination for president.  Does he have any chance?  Ace political reporter Dan Balz examines the Newt thing for the Washington Post:

There are many questions he will confront. Gingrich is an idea-spewing machine, unlike anyone else in the Republican Party. But does America want a one-man think tank, particularly one with his history, as its president?

Is he yesterday’s man at a time when Republicans may want a fresh face? A number of GOP strategists think his time has passed, though he obviously does not and looks to history for inspiration.

Is he professionally disciplined enough to be a successful presidential candidate? His record in public life suggests otherwise. He vows this will be different.

Will his personal life — multiple marriages and an admission of adultery — prove disqualifying to social conservatives? Many think it will. His hope is that Americans like stories of confession and redemption.

Gingrich says that he has learned from his mistakes, that he begins this campaign in a different frame of mind. He claims he will listen to those around him, including some of his newest advisers. He says he will take seriously the advice he receives from others. If that turns out to be true, it will mark a distinct change in his modus operandi.

His announcement stressed his work with President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and his accomplishments when he was speaker during the 1990s (though with no mention of the work he did in cooperation with President Bill Clinton).

COMMENT:  I think this is a rather "iffy" proposition.  I love listening to Newt.  He is, as Dan Balz wrote, an idea factory.  But the opposition research on him is easy, and he was forced from the speakership on ethics charges.  Yes, it's true, other politicians have come back from the dead.  Winston Churchill was the political corpse who went on to lead England through World War II.  Nixon was the subject of endless political obituaries in the early 60s, but won the presidency in 1968. 

But this is the glaring media age, and things move very quickly.  I think it's a long shot for Newt, but he'll add some color and intellect to the race.

May 12, 2011      Permalink

ON GUARD – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  There's a tendency to think that large cities are Al Qaeda's only targets in the United States.  Material gleaned from the bin Laden raid rejects that notion.  From AP:

Deep in hiding, his terror organization becoming battered and fragmented, Osama bin Laden kept pressing followers to find new ways to hit the U.S., officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week's raid.

Strike smaller cities, bin Laden suggested. Target trains as well as planes. Above all, kill as many Americans as possible in a single attack.

Though he was out of the public eye and al-Qaida seemed to be weakening, bin Laden never yielded control of his worldwide organization, U.S. officials said Wednesday. His personal, handwritten journal and his massive collection of computer files reveal his hand at work in every recent major al-Qaida threat, including plots in Europe last year that had travelers and embassies on high alert, two officials said.

They described the intelligence only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about what was found in bin Laden's hideout. Analysts are continuing to review the documents.

The information shatters the government's conventional thinking about bin Laden, who had been regarded for years as mostly an inspirational figurehead whose years in hiding made him too marginalized to maintain operational control of the organization he founded.

Conventional thinking, like loose lips, sinks ships.  It is absurd to think that Al Qaeda and its followers have gone into remission, just as it's absurd to think they don't look at new types of targets all the time.  And please note, up to now the Islamic extremists have only been able to use conventional weapons.  There will simply be a point where they acquire the skills to use WMD of some kind, even a simple biological weapon.

There are drumbeats on the left suggesting that the war on terror is over.  It is not over because it is part of what President Kennedy correctly termed "the twilight struggle."  We had the patience to serve out the Cold War.  The sixties generation never had the patience for anything.  But we will depend on a new generation of Americans, just rising, to see us through.  Based on some early signs, like student support for ROTC on elite campuses, we have some reason for guarded optimism.

May 12,  2011         Permalink 

MAY 11,  2011

MINIMAL INTEREST IN THE AMERICAN MEDIA – AT 10:42 P.M. ET:  It is just stunning to see how indifferent we've become to what is happening in Syria, one of the most important Mideast countries, and a complete dictatorship.  From The New York Times:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The Syrian military intensified a methodical, ferocious march across the country’s most restive locales on Wednesday, shelling the country’s third-largest city from tanks, forcing hundreds to flee and detaining hundreds more in what has emerged as one of the most brutal waves of repression since the Arab Spring began.

Homs, in central Syria near the Lebanese border, has become the latest target of the crackdown, which has already besieged and silenced, for now, the cities of Dara’a, in the fertile but drought-stricken southern steppe, and Baniyas, on the Mediterranean coast. Dozens of tanks occupied Homs, as black-clad security forces, soldiers and militiamen in plain clothes filtered through the industrial city of 1.5 million people. At least 19 people were killed there Wednesday, human rights groups said.

The crackdown in some neighborhoods alternated with the relative calm in the center of a city that is home to a Sunni Muslim majority and a Christian minority.

COMMENT:  The only good news on this issue is that Syria has temporarily withdrawn its application to become a member of the UN Human Rights Council.  You know, awkward.  Not that the Human Rights Council would have minded Syria being there.  These guys understand each other.

Some knowledgeable people predicted that the Arab spring might turn into a bitter winter.  I'm afraid it's happening.

May 11, 2011       Permalink

TIN EAR SYNDROME, UNCURED AT THE WHITE HOUSE – AT 10:19 P.M. ET:  Sometimes I have to wonder how something like this happens.  In this White House, it happens quite a bit.  From Fox:

The White House on Wednesday defended the invitation sent by first lady Michelle Obama to rapper and actor Common to attend a poetry event amid backlash over some of his lyrics that critics say promote violence.

Common, whose real name is Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., is not considered a gangsta rapper, but some of his songs and poems feature violent imagery.

In one poem, he called for the metaphorical burning of President George W. Bush -- a "burning Bush." And in a song, he praised convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Assata Shakur.

"While the president doesn't support the kind of lyrics that have been raised here, we do think some of the reports distort what Mr. Lynn stands for more broadly in order to stoke controversy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday.

"He is within the genre of hip hop and rap in what's known as a conscious rapper," he said, adding that President Obama appreciates the way Common tries to get children to focus on poetry, "as opposed to some of the negative influences of life on the street."

Carney cited a Fox News report from last October that described Common as a "rap legend" whose "music is very positive."

Carney added that he did not know whether the White House vetted the poetry to be recited at the reading Wednesday night.

"The fact is, Mr. Lynn has participated in other events in the past, including lighting the Christmas tree. I believe he's a multi-Grammy award-winning artist and he's been invited to this event about poetry," Carney said.

Some conservatives have howled in protest over Common's invite.

"Oh lovely, White House," Sarah Palin said sarcastically in a tweet.

COMMENT:  Or, as they said several generations ago, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Hitler had a great social security system.  Nice roads, too.

Some in this society are forever trying to clean up the reputations of people who've done some very bad things simply because they've done some good things as well.  How about putting the emphasis on people who only do good things.

I think it's hilarious that Mr. Obama is quoted as saying he doesn't support all of this chap's lyrics.  Oh goody.  Try to tell that to the kids who listen to them.

Shame.

May 11,  2011     Permalink

DEMS GO BERSERK, BUT MISS THE ASTERISK – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  There is hysteria, glee and chest thumping this morning among Democrats over a new poll that shows Barack Obama almost in a position to be elected king, or at least prince:

President Barack Obama's approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president's standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.

Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths — 73 percent — also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats. And he improved his standing on Afghanistan, Iraq and the United States' relationships with other countries.

Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency; 52 percent also now like how he's handling the nation's stubbornly high 9 percent unemployment.

The economy remains Americans' top issue.

COMMENT:  In the immortal words of that distinguished philosopher, George Gobel, wait a gosh-darned second.  You have to dig down to the last paragraph of this giddy story to find the very big asterisk, and here it is:

The Associated Press-GfK Poll was conducted May 5-9 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

Are we serious here?  A poll among "adults" is the least accurate, and the one most likely to oversample Democrats.  These aren't even registered voters.  And they're certainly not likely voters.  Maybe they're not even citizens, or even adults.  I'd love to know how many 16-year-olds answer their cellphone and think it's cool to say, "Hey, man, yeah, I'm an adult dude."

If I had a desk at Democratic National Headquarters, I'd stay calm and not break out the champagne, or goat's milk, or whatever they drink.  Good polls are taken among likely voters, and they're showing a more modest bin Laden bounce for the president.

May 11, 2011       Permalink 

THERE THEY GO AGAIN – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  The Democrats in the Senate have come up with a budget plan.  Guess what it contains?  Take a good guess.  From The Weekly Standard: 

Senate Democrats finally have a budget proposal that most of the caucus seems to be satisfied with.

According to the Hill, Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) presented a proposal to the Democratic caucus today that contains an even split of spending cuts and tax hikes.

And...

If a "50-50" budget requires $2 trillion in tax increases over the next decade, it's likely going to take a lot more than repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, which, according to the White House's numbers from its FY2011 proposal, would only reduce the deficit by around $700 billion. This means tax hikes on the middle class, such as an increase in the federal gas tax as recommended by the fiscal commission, are most certainly on the table. Such a proposal could pass the Budget Committee, but would the Democratic senators seeking reelection next year vote for a budget that would necessarily raise taxes on the middle class?

Just what the nation needs.  Higher gas prices.  Isn't that what you were thinking this morning?

Besides, while an even split between tax increases and spending cuts might satisfy liberal Democrats in the Senate, historical evidence shows that among developed countries facing severe debt crises, those that cut more in expenditures than they raised in taxes were on average more successful in winding down their debt. And while the details of the "50-50" budget haven't been released, it's unlikely the $2 trillion in spending would address the largest spending driver of our debt--Medicare.

All these details.  So much bother.

Frankly, I can't see moderate Democratic officeholders from swing states going anywhere near this plan, unless they want to spend more time with their families. 

At the same time, basic math may make some tax increases necessary, as has occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations.  The Medicare cost crisis is real, and Americans are making it clear they don't want benefits reduced.  That's a bad combination.  I suspect Americans would be willing to accept a targeted increase in Medicare premiums if they honestly believed they were getting something for it, and if they saw real efforts to rein in Medicare costs.  I think, given the politics of the country, that it will come to that.

May 11, 2011       Permalink 

ANOTHER CASE FOR JUDGE JUDY – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  This bin Laden family, they show such respect for the rule of law.  I'm almost moved.  I wonder what the jury will say.  From London's Daily Mail:

Osama Bin Laden's son has denounced the Al Qaeda leader's killing as 'criminal' and said he reserves the right to take legal action against America.

And the sad fact is that there are probably plenty of lawyers here who would take the case. 

The statement apparently made by Omar Bin Laden has appeared on an Islamist website.

Omar, who is Bin Laden's fourth eldest son, claimed he and the Al Qaeda chief's other children are reserving the right to take legal action in the U.S. and internationally to 'determine the true fate of our vanished father', said the SITE Intelligence Group, an online monitoring service.

He also branded his father's burial at sea as a 'humiliation' for his family.

I think we should send him one of our grief counselors.  I can understand how humiliated he is that daddy didn't get a funeral procession down Pennsylvania Avenue. 

There was no independent confirmation of the authenticity of the letter. It was published on the website of Islamist ideologue Abu Walid al-Masri.

Several specialists on militant propaganda said the text appeared genuine.

And several members of Pakistan's parliament interrupted proceedings yesterday to hold a prayer vigil in memory of bin Laden. 

We learn now that John Kerry is rushing to Pakistan to soothe relations.  That should do it.  A few hours with John on his yacht, and Pakistani officials should be pro-American once more.  Gosh, I wish he'd run for president again.

May 11, 2011        Permalink

HEY MUAMMAR, DON'T YOU GET THE MESSAGE? – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  We wrote yesterday about the need to make clear to the Libyan leader that he will be bin Ladened if he doesn't vacate the premises immediately.  Apparently, NATO has the same idea.  It's also trying to head off a Libyan plot to flood Europe with refugees:  From Britain's Telegraph:

Col Muammar Gaddafi and his armed forces have been directly targeted in a series of precision strikes in Tripoli and the key town of Misurata as concerns grow that the regime is attempting to swamp Europe with refugees.

The new phase of highly accurate attacks, shown in photographs released by the Ministry of Defence on Tuesday, was launched as an increasingly desperate refugee crisis has seen thousands from Libya flee for Europe in just a few days.

In a sign that the regime is trying to force a refugee crisis as a weapon against its Nato enemies, almost 1,900 people from Libya arrived in five boats on the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Linosa this weekend alone.

Another vessel sank – bringing the total lost to four boats.

Hundreds of bodies are now washing ashore along the Libyan coast. Some of the refugees said they were forced on to the boats by Libyan troops and police, the International Organisation for Migration reported. Others were given free passage, in contrast to the normal practice where migrants are charged fortunes for the crossing...

...Early on Tuesday, Nato forces carried out some of their heaviest strikes on the capital, Tripoli, for weeks, attacking targets said to include part of Col Gaddafi's leadership compound.

And this is intriguing:

There was speculation last night that Col Gaddafi had been killed in Nato bombings of his compound, although the Foreign Office said it had received no reports that he was dead.

The Libyan leader has not been seen in public since the air strike 10 days ago in which his son, Saif al-Arab, was killed. He did not attend the funeral. Libya’s prime minister, Al-Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi, has denied that Col Gaddafi was hit in the raid and said that he is in mourning for his son.

I could understand Gaddafi not attending the funeral.  He could easily have been targeted at a known location.  But I wonder how long it will take him to realize that his days are numbered unless he gets out of power.  If he goes, you can be sure Barack Obama will take the credit for it.

May 11, 2011     Permalink