SATURDAY,  AUGUST 1,  2009

THE REALITY IN TEHRAN - AT 10:11 A.M. ET:  Defying any sense of decency, Iran is going ahead with trials of political dissidents.  None of the arrested dissidents, or the mullah-directed police, have been invited to the White House to sit down, have a beer, and shoot the breeze over the history of oppression.

As all this is going on, the Obamans are trying to get Tehran's attention because, you know, we are seriously interested in talking about their nuclear program.  Just let us know by September.

TEHRAN, Aug. 1 -- More than 100 political activists and protesters went on trial Saturday on charges of rioting and conspiring to topple the government in the turmoil surrounding Iran's presidential election, the semiofficial Fars news agency reported.

The defendants included several prominent politicians -- former members of parliament, first-generation revolutionaries and an ex-vice president -- who have been locked in a decades-long power struggle with Iran's hard-line clerics and Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Wearing gray prison uniforms and appearing thin after weeks in jail, some defendants gave lengthy confessions, saying President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the disputed June 12 election free of fraud.

COMMENT:  Haven't seen any comment from the president. But the idea that the mullahs will negotiate any serious changes in their nuclear program grows more and more absurd.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

OH PLEASE - AT 8:11 P.M. ET:  The Obamafied press, thrown off its game recently by the president's plunging poll numbers, is working to get back in stride.  Analyze and excuse is the name of the game.  For example:

WASHINGTON – The success of President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda — from health care and climate change to education — could depend on how quickly he recovers from the sharp drop in support among white voters after criticizing a white policeman's arrest of a black Harvard scholar.

In the immortal words of that great philosopher, George Gobel, let's wait a gosh-darned minute.  From the figures I've seen, the drop in Obama's support began long before he opened his mouth about the Gates arrest.  This seems to be a set-up to suggest that the president's policies are popular, but compromised only by that one incident.  Not true, not true.

If Obama is to have success with the policy changes he wants, he can't afford to shed white support. Not to mention the disaster that losing the affections of many in the blue-collar, Reagan Democrat constituency would spell for any re-election campaign.

Better wait another gosh-darned minute.  The whole premise here is wrong, but results from a mentality that says, "America is a racist country. Obama has to avoid race so his agenda, which people really want, isn't hurt."

This is total nonsense.  It's Obama's policies that aren't popular.  Survey after survey shows that.  The Gates incident simply made matters worse, but it didn't create the problem.

Finally, some sanity:

Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University political science professor, noted that whites are more likely to be Republicans and independents than Democrats, and that poll numbers, even on a specific question, are almost never pure.

"I think here any decline in his poll numbers have more to do with the economy, health care, and issues other than the Gates arrest," he said. "His ability to recover has to be looked at in the longer term, which will hinge on the economy most of all, then other issues like Iraq/Afghanistan, health care, energy/the environment."

That is correct.

But the story plunges right back into some very strange territory:

Obama also could benefit from the fact that Congress is heading into its August recess. Pending health care overhaul legislation — and the still-limping economy — will be the talk of their towns as lawmakers spend the month in their districts.

How, precisely, does Obama benefit from this?  It's opposition to his health-care schemes that got him into so much trouble.  That's what members of Congress will hear when they go home.

Journalistic weirdness.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

NEW TERROR THREAT - AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  Somalia is emerging as a major terrorist threat.  We know there are Somali groups in the United States, centered in Minneapolis, from which young men have suddenly gone missing.  It is believed by law enforcement that they've gone back to Somalia for jihadist training:

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- An Al Qaeda-linked militant group waging war against Somalia's fragile government is becoming an increasing threat to Western ally Kenya and could potentially destabilize the region with dire consequences for global security, officials and analysts warn.

Kenya is President Obama's father's native country.  There might be some interest at the White House.

Al-Shabaab, one of the strongest Islamic militias battling for control of Mogadishu, has gained ground in recent weeks, according to officials, and has started to flex its muscles beyond Somalia's border with terror strikes, kidnappings and recruitment drives.

They warn that unless the world takes action the group, which wants to impose an extreme type of Islamic sharia law, could extend its grip across parts of East Africa to gain control of a region that flanks busy shipping routes already plagued by Somali pirates.

Remember the pirates?  America is snoozing.

And, say experts, the group is being backed by foreign fighters -- some said to have links to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network -- a situation that draws direct comparisons with the group's influence in pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  The terror threat continues.  Even the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is using the word "terror," after it had been officially retired in one of those left-wing secret ceremonies in which, presumably, the term was expunged from Webster's using a gallon of Wite-Out.

But the Wite House, or White House, doesn't seem unduly alarmed.  How does holy terror compare to Professor Gates's arrest in Cambridge?

August 1, 2009   Permalink

CHALLENGE TO CONGRESS - AT 11:19 A.M. ET:  The Pentagon wants to accelerate a critical new weapon, but it needs Congressional approval:

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Defense Department wants to accelerate by three years the deployment of a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb, a request that reflects growing unease over nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea.

Comptroller Robert Hale, in a formal request to the four congressional defense committees earlier this month, asked permission to shift about $68 million in the Pentagon’s budget to this program to ensure the first four bombs could be mounted on stealthy B-2 bombers by July 2010.

Hale, in his July 8 request, said there was “an urgent operational need for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high-threat environments,” and top commanders of U.S. forces in Asia and the Middle East “recently identified the need to expedite” the bomb program.

The bomb would be the U.S. military’s largest and six times bigger than the 5,000-pound bunker buster that the Air Force now uses to attack deeply buried nuclear, biological or chemical sites.

The specific need:

Accelerating the program “is intended to, at the very least, give the president the option of conducting a strike to knock out Iran’s main uranium enrichment capabilities,” said Ken Katzman, Middle East military expert for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

COMMENT:  This is a major challenge to Congress, where irresponsibility about weapons programs is a habit.  Congress still hasn't approved the modernization of our nuclear arsenal.  We are the only nuclear power that has not recently upgraded its nuclear stockpile to meet modern standards.

Air Force spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Karen Platt said Boeing could be put on contract within 72 hours to build the first bombs if Congress approves the shift of funds by mid- August.

Congress is going on recess.  What will happen when it returns in September?  Will this get the priority it deserves?  Very hard to say.  The doctrinaire liberals control the House, where this proposal may run into some stiff opposition.  You know, sends the wrong message to our Muslim friends.  That kind of thing.

But we need this weapon, and we need it fast.

...even though the U.S. wants “this capability, especially for weapons of mass destruction targets, as soon as possible, that doesn’t mean we’ll use them -- but the planners are supposed to create capability and also send messages to potential adversaries,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a national defense analyst with the nonpartisan Brookings Institution.

Important story, and we'll follow it.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

THE HIDDEN PERSUADER? - AT 10:43 A.M. ET:  America's Latin American policy borders on madness.  We are currently, and with considerable passion, trying to restore to the Honduran presidency a legally ousted leader, Mel Zelaya, who is a close ally of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.  It makes no sense at all...unless you look at some of the people around Obama.  Superb reporter Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports for the Wall Street Journal:

Having established that making nice with the region’s troublemakers is a priority, Mr. Obama now wants Mr. Zelaya—who was endorsed by the FARC last week—reinstated. If Honduras does not comply, the U.S. is threatening to freeze assets and revoke the visas of interim government officials.

Some Washington watchers figure this bizarre stance is due to the fact that Mr. Obama is relying heavily on White House Counsel Gregory Craig for advice on Latin America.

Mr. Craig was the lawyer for Fidel Castro—er, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, the father of Elian Gonzalez—during Bill Clinton’s 2000 repatriation to Cuba of the seven-year-old. During the presidential campaign when Mr. Craig was advising Mr. Obama, the far-left Council on Hemispheric Affairs endorsed Mr. Craig as “the right man to revive deeply flawed U.S.-Latin America relations.” In other words, to pull policy left.

There is plenty of speculation that Mr. Obama is making policy off of Mr. Craig’s “expertise.” It is not too much to believe. Indeed, if all policy is now being run out of the White House, as many observers contend, then the views of the White House counsel may explain a lot.

COMMENT:  It's devastating enough that the White House counsel has that background, just as devastating that the media didn't tell us, and more devastating to think that he could be having influence.  The president's domestic policy is a train wreck.  His foreign policy is another train going off the tracks.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT FOREIGN POLICY VICTORY, TO GO WITH ALL THE OTHERS - AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  Once again Americans are treated to another smashing victory for Obama's foreign policy and for Hillary Clinton, who must already be seething at the fact that she has to stand out there and take the punches.  From AP:

Saudi Arabia on Friday bluntly rejected U.S. appeals for improved relations with Israel as a way to help restart Middle East peace talks, saying the Jewish state is not interested in a deal.

After talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said his country will not consider steps suggested by U.S. Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell until Israel accepts Arab demands to withdraw from all occupied Palestinian territories.

"Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach, has not and, we believe, will not lead to peace," Saud said as Clinton looked on at a joint State Department news conference. "Temporary security and confidence building measures will also not bring peace."

COMMENT:  Another setback.  This administration does not have a single foreign-policy success to its credit.  What must Hillary have been thinking as she stood there, listening to this latest rebuff to The One and his great vision of peace?  Maybe she was wondering how she got into this, and when she can leave discreetly.  If you can get off the Titanic and into a lifeboat, get off.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

MAXIMUM LEADER CAN CELEBRATE A SMALL VICTORY - AT 9:20 A.M. ET:  One congressional committee has passed a health-care plan.  It will take you only a few minutes to read the story, several months to understand what it says.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — House members headed home on Friday, leaving behind the outlines of a nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul that is sure to draw fire from a variety of interests, but also shows the beginnings of a consensus that would provide insurance for more Americans and give them new rights in dealing with insurers.

Note the way that's phrased.  It's "interests" that oppose the plan, but "more" Americans who will have insurance and also have "new rights."  Nothing like a little slanted journalism.  But the left-wing press has few things to cheer these days, so let's be generous.

As a final act before recessing until September, one crucial panel, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, approved landmark health legislation that could ultimately lead to coverage for about 95 percent of Americans and create a new government-run insurance program.

Well, there's the fly in the soup - another government-run insurance program.  Dream of bureaucrats making health decisions.  Dream of long lines and waits.  Dream of...the glories of socialism.

Lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of Americans from obtaining affordable insurance. Insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and could not charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical history or current illness. All insurers would have to offer a minimum package of benefits, to be defined by the federal government, and nearly all Americans would be required to have insurance.

Catch the loophole.  Companies could not charge more to an individual because of illness or history, but could they raise rates for everyone to cover the obvious losses they'd incur by covering people who are already sick?  This is not meant to be cruel - we want people to have care - but there's something here that looks like it's being done with fun-house mirrors.

In an analysis of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that people without insurance would pay $29 billion in penalties over the next 10 years, while employers not offering insurance would pay penalties totaling $163 billion.

Now wait.  People pay "penalties," but don't get insurance?  Better look at that one with a magnifying glass.

Overall, it's impossible to say, from news stories out this morning, how this plan would work.  And the journalistic fine print notes that this bill will have to be melded together with others, from other committees and both houses of Congress, when Congress returns from recess in September.  In the meantime, members are going home and will hear from their constituents.  That's when the real fun begins.

We wonder how many members will actually be able to answer the questions that constituents - real people - have.

August 1, 2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  JULY 31,  2009

THE FAST HUSTLE IS ON - AT 8:42 P.M. ET:  The cable channels are filled with chatter suggesting that the recession is easing.  Newsweek, which wasn't a news magazine even when it was a news magazine, announces on its cover, "The recession is over."

The fast hustle has begun.

The president was on TV today announcing that the latest economic statistics are encouraging, and that "economists" say it's a result of the stimulus package.  A few weeks ago the administration was arguing that the stimulus package can't be blamed for bad economic news because it hasn't kicked in yet.  Take your pick.  Both can't be right, but "honesty" isn't this president's middle name.  (During the campaign we were told we couldn't use his middle name, or that maybe he didn't have one.)

There are some encouraging economic numbers, tentative though they may be.  We have said here before that, if the country seems to be rising economically next year, Obama will take full credit, and the Democrats may do well in the midterm elections.  All stops will be pulled out by the administration, its press allies, and Obama's sympathetic operators on Wall Street, to provide the image of a new prosperity.  It may work.  Don't assume today's poll numbers will predict the 2010 elections.

We have work to do, and it begins with truth telling. 

July 31, 2009   Permalink

INTO THE DARKNESS - AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  As if any more proof were needed, there are new signs that Venezuela is slipping more and more into a Marxist-style dictatorship, despite "elections."  We should recall that, technically speaking at least, Hitler was elected:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuela's top prosecutor insisted Thursday that freedom of expression in Venezuela "must be limited" and proposed legislation that would slap additional restrictions on the country's news media.

The new law would punish the owners of radio stations, television channels and newspapers that have attempted to "cause panic" and "disturb social peace," Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.

It also would punish media owners who "manipulate the news with the purpose of transmitting a false perception of the facts."

"Freedom of expression must be limited," Ortega said.

Ortega urged lawmakers to consider her suggestions as they debate a bill that would punish as-yet-undefined "media crimes." The National Assembly, which is controlled by allies of President Hugo Chavez, is expected to approve the measure in coming months.

COMMENT:  This is happening as the Obama administration is openly aiding the return to power of Chavez's ally and friend, the legally ousted former president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya.  That must be encouraging to the anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela. 

We have seen no comment from our own State Department on this latest Chavez outrage.  Don't expect much.  Normalization with Castro is underway.  Why cause any problems?  Communism?  Just another lifestyle choice.

July 31, 2009   Permalink

NEW IRAN HOSTAGES - AT 6:28 P.M. ET:  This has been developing over the last few hours:

(CNN) -- Three American tourists are reportedly in Iranian custody after they may have strayed across the border from Iraq during a mountain hike, Kurdish officials said Friday.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, said it was checking into the reports but could not confirm them.

A senior Kurdish official said four U.S. tourists had entered Kurdistan in northern Iraq from Turkey, staying in Sulaimaniya for about two nights. Three of the tourists traveled on to a tourist area near the Iranian border called Ahmed Awa, where they intended to go backpacking.

COMMENT:  Apparently the story is true.  This once again complicates our Iran policy.  Will we have to negotiate for the release of these three?  Apologize for something?  (Well, this administration is certainly skilled at that.) 

Remember that North Korea is holding two Americans they claim are spies.  You'll notice how effective the Obama engagement policy has been in getting them out. 

I suspect that, after a few months of agony, we'll have some "humanitarian" gesture from Iran, just before the September deadline set for them for responding to our "outreach."  There may even be warm and fuzzy moments.

July 31, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's daily tracker continues to show the president in trouble, with no sign of improvement.  Again today, disapproval of the president's performance stands at 51%, approval at 48%.

Rasmussen also polled on the president's handling of the Henry Louis Gates arrest, and the results are pretty devastating for Mr. Obama. 

...just 30% of U.S. voters give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of the situation over the past week.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% believe Obama has done a poor job dealing with the situation in recent days.

COMMENT:  Coming in the midst of the health-care debacle, Obama didn't need this new headache, which he created for himself by opening his mouth about the Gates case at a news conference.

The president is plainly in trouble.  Presidents get out of trouble in one of three ways:  1) they retire; 2) they do better; or 3) some outside event unifies the country around them.  Obama isn't retiring and he can't depend on outside events.  He has to do better.

July 31, 2009   Permalink

OKAY, FAIRNESS - AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  In our first post today, I complained loudly about a biased piece in the Washington Post, which reported only on contributions by health insurers to moderate Democrats, but which was silent on liberals.  Now, I'm happy to say, the Congressional Quarterly has provided some balance:

Some of the largest expenditures from lobbyists and their clients during the first six months of this year went to hosting events and making charitable donations in honor of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass.

On Wednesday, the American Medical Association, for example, reported spending $195,965 on an event in March honoring Kennedy, who is chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as Rep. Nathan Deal , R-Ga, the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

Boston-based Partners Healthcare also reported making a $200,000 donation in June toward the Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, a research center to be established in Boston based on the senator’s political career.

Kennedy wasn't the only liberal so honored:

The deadline for reporting lobbying expenditures and donations on behalf of lawmakers is midnight tonight. But reports already filed include: a $250,000 donation from Cigna to the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation in honor of Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy , D-R.I., a foundation board member; a $38,720 expenditure by the American Psychological Association Practice Organization to honor Sen. Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M.; and $60,715 in expenditures from the Lupus Foundation of America honoring Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski , D-Md., and Rep. James P. Moran , D-Va.

COMMENT:  At least we're getting some fairness in the reporting, if only from CQ. 

July 31, 2009   Permalink

STRATEGY OR ILLUSION? - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  We now have some details on what the Obama administration plans for Iran if the mullahs reject our offer to negotiate terms of their nuclear program.  The trouble is, there are asterisks, deadly asterisks.  From the Israeli press:

U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones, who is now in Israel to discuss Iran's nuclear program, indicated that Tehran has until the UN General Assembly in the last week of September to respond. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates delivered a similar message during his visit here earlier this week. If no satisfactory answer is received, the Americans said, they would work to form an international coalition to impose harsh sanctions on Iran.

They key term is not "harsh sanctions" but "international coalition."  Try forming one sometime.

New sanctions would mainly aim to significantly curb Tehran's ability to import refined petroleum products. Despite its huge crude oil reserves, Iran has only limited refining capacity, so it imports large quantities of refined products such as gasoline.

Has anyone who sells gasoline to Iran even vaguely agreed to this?

In the next stage, the Americans will consider even harsher sanctions, such as banning Iranian ships from docking in Western ports and, as a next step, banning Iranian airplanes from landing in Western airports.

And the key term here is, "the Americans will consider..."  Anyone else considering?

Jones and his team presented the ideas that the administration is forging, together with France, Britain and Germany, on imposing additional sanctions on Iran via the UN Security Council if the dialogue fails. The Americans are also discussing this issue with Russia, which at this stage objects to further sanctions.

Russia has veto power on the Council.  That answers that.

China, which has numerous interests in Iran, also objects to further sanctions. Jones told the Israelis that Obama will therefore go to China soon to try to enlist Beijing to join the coalition.

China also has veto power.  But The One will convince them...just as he's convinced Iran and North Korea to change their policies.

Why is my enthusiasm limited?

July 31, 2009   Permalink

JOURNALISTIC ASSAULT ON BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS - AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  The Washington Post has shown improvement over the last year, reflecting changes in management.  But a story today returns to the old ways.  It's a hit piece on the Blue Dog Democrats - moderates - linking their views on health care to financial contributions from health insurers.

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

Now, there's actually nothing ethically wrong with this story.  Following the money is entirely legitimate, and looking at the campaign contributions of the health industry, especially during the current debate on health legislation, is perfectly proper.

The problem is, the piece is contradictory and reflects a biased, one-sided approach.  It's contradictory because it points out, almost casually, that the Blue Dogs are from conservative districts to begin with.  Their views are influenced by their constituents, and the campaign contributions are a reflection of views they already had. 

It's biased because no examination has been done on the liberal side.  You have Barbara Lee, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, who is an extremist by any congressional standard.  She was the only member of Congress to vote against military action after 9/11.  She's an openly avowed fan of Fidel Castro, and visits Cuba in solidarity.   Where is the story about her?

Where is the story about contributions given to some ultra-liberal members of Congress by far-left operators, like the troops of MoveOn.org, or interest groups financed by George Soros?  Of course, if a newspaper ran a story like that, you can be sure that it would be accused of "McCarthyism," one of the most misused words in the English language.  Only associations on the right are permitted to be discussed.

We hope the Washington Post does better.  The New York Times certainly won't.

July 31, 2009   Permalink