WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 3,  2008

RENEE

Posted at 8:06 p.m. ET:

Well, regular readers know who "Renee" is.  She is Renee Nielsen, pictured below, our terrific contact in Mumbai, who's been sending us her remarkable reports and insights.  Here is another dispatch, filed today:

- Today, starting at 4 p.m., thousands gathered down at the Gateway of India to march against terrorism. It has been a peaceful protest, but you can see from the live interviews (complete with cursing) that the citizens of Mumbai are very angry with politicians here. Many are calling for the businesspeople/actors (i.e. the ones with money who pay the most taxas and have influence) to put pressure on the politicians to make swift changes and increase security for the city.

Some are calling for the politicians to have minimum educational qualifications plus 10 years of public service before being allowed to run. People here feel the politicians are uneducated, and are corrupt because of it. Some want the age limit to be 60 to get new and younger faces into power. One man even ranted on how the US under President Bush protected his country from terror attacks after 9/11, so why can't India stop these attacks the way the US can?

- Sec of State Rice held a joint conference with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee in Delhi earlier this evening. The part that jumped out to the media on their endless "Breaking News banners" was this statement: "What has to happen is there has to be a real sense of transparency, real sense of action and real sense of urgency because these are extremists who have the same intention and same goal, and that is to terrorize and send messages to states around the world."

Headlines are reading: "Rice tells Pak to Act Fast."

The consensus has not been to dismiss Rice, as she and Bush are leaving, but more that Obama will continue this policy. I did not hear anyone dismissing Rice as a lame duck.

- The rhetoric between Indian and Pakistan is starting to heat up, especially after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, on Larry King Live last night, questioned if the one terrorist captured was even Pakistani.

- Zardari also waffled his way past a question about India's demand for handing over 20 terrorists living in Pakistan, saying he was "definitely going to look into all the possibility of any proof that is given to us.

"At the moment these are just names of individuals. No proof, no investigation, nothing has been brought to forward," he said. Some of the names in the Indian list, notably Dawood Ibrahim, are Indian nationals convicted in Indian courts. Ibrahim lives in the same neighborhood in Karachi (Clifton) where Zardari has a home, according to past reports in the Pakistani media.

Asked if he would turn over the fugitives (including Indian nationals) if India provided the proof, Zardari fudged again, just like his predecessor, saying, "If we had the proof, we would try them in our courts, we would try them in our land and we would sentence them." Accounts in the Pakistani media reveal many of the fugitives and outlaws live under ISI protection and patronage.

The interview appeared to have been taped before Indian and U.S officials confirmed the Pakistani plot, based on the confession of the captured terrorist and electronic evidence.   None of the news programs are providing their audience with this major piece of information to provide context. People are outraged over Zardari's comments.

- I've just spent the last 2 hours watching Times Now and Headline News, with their guests panels representing both India and Pakistani perspectives.

The general theme from India: Even the US is putting pressure on you, give up the 20 terrorists on the list! One anchor on Headline News asked Indian Former Army CHief VP Malik: "Do we have proof so soon in the investigation these really are Pakistanis?"  The response: "Everyone knows about it. The terrorists came from Pakistan."

The Pakistani position on all these shows has not differed from President Zardari.  Khalid Rahmaan, from the Institute of Policy Studies in Pakistan, complained:

"India is pointing fingers."

"Are the terrorists really Pakistani?"

"The goverment of Pakistan is saying that India is putting pressure on instead of trying to genuinely investigate."

- The Indian government has stated that military action is NOT off the table.

- At Chhatrapati Shivaji Rail Terminus today, two bags containing eight kg of explosive material were discovered.  This created more outrage by the populace about the competence of the politicians and police - to have missed something so deadly. People have been using the station for days now. Last night another bomb was found outside the Taj.  That also had been missed.

- Pakistani news channels are saying that Hindu Zionists were responsible for the attacks:

- All in all, it's a big mess of accusations and denials between India and Pakistan, played through the media.  The media is not helping, as it sensationalizes every piece of information coming out.

Tensions are high.

Another great report from Renee, filled with stuff we generally don't get here from the mainstream press.

December 3, 2008.      Permalink          

5:46 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up 171, to 8592, continuing its rally.

AHEM.  A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ME ON THE WAY TO PERFECTION TODAY - I MADE A MISTAKE - 5:21 P.M. ET:  I asked in our 2:46 p.m. post for readers to name any commerce secretary who'd gone on to higher office, assuming there hadn't been any.  Well, reader Fred Hill gently reminds me that a fellow named Herbert Hoover was commerce secretary, then became president.  So, I guess miracles happen.  I stand corrected. 

YES, VIRGINIA, IRAN HAS A BUDGET, TOO - AT 4:18 P.M. ET:  From AP:  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted Wednesday as saying that Iran will be forced to trim spending and generous subsidies and raise taxes. It's a sensitive admission for the Iranian president, who is seeking re-election in June.  Oil prices have plunged from $147 a barrel in July to under $50, adding to the pain of Iran's rising inflation and unemployment.

COMMENT:  Of course, the revered president could eliminate the nuclear-weapons program.  That could save some big bucks.  He could also cut off the merit awards to terror groups around the world.  And, someone please tell him that raising taxes in a recession is not a good idea.  Wait.  Don't tell him.

NOT ENOUGH - AT 3:28 P.M. ET:  Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, struggling for support in Congress for aid, won money-saving union agreements to delay contributions to medical funds and suspend a program that pays laid-off workers.

COMMENT:  Good start, but they've got to convince Americans to buy their cars. And that means better cars, zero defects, good designs.  They should address that problem directly, and before Congress. 

RICHARDSON TO COMMERCE - AT 2:46 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Post:  CHICAGO, Dec. 3 -- President-elect Barack Obama announced his choice Wednesday of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary, saying his one-time rival for the Democratic presidential nomination will be "a key strategist" on economic and other issues confronting the new administration.

COMMENT:  Okay, key strategist or not, it still looks like a consolation prize to the Hispanic community, of which Richardson is a part.  Name the current commerce secretary.  Name any commerce secretary who's ever gone on to higher office?  Maybe there a few, but I can't think of any offhand.  Richardson is a governor (New Mexico).  It's hard to see why he'd give up a governor's chair for a second-level cabinet job.

OUR HEARTS BREAK - AT 2:37 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  In a sign of the economic times, Harvard has sent a letter to its deans saying that the university’s $36.9 billion endowment fund lost 22 percent of its value in the last four months and could decline as much as 30 percent by the end of the fiscal year on June 30.  Normally Harvard reports on the endowment’s performance once a year, but the letter signed by the university’s president, Drew Faust, and its executive vice president, Edward C. Forst, cited the “current extraordinary circumstances” as the rationale for providing an interim report.

COMMENT:  We have a note at SNIPPETS about a trend that will make college unaffordable for most Americans.  The above story about Harvard ran in the Business section of The Times, not the Education section.  Isn't it time we started demanding that colleges cut down on their profligacy, especially whole departments dedicated, not to scholarship, but to grievance-group interests?  Universities have become sacred cows.  They are neither sacred nor cows.  They receive sizable amounts of federal aid, and now is the time for oversight panels in Congress to ask tough questions about where the money goes.

DIPPING DOW - AT 9:37 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 140, right after the opening.

THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING

Posted at 8:45 a.m. ET

This is a good follow-up to our report on Andrew McCarthy, below. 

Steve Emerson, one of the American pioneers in the fight against terrorism, and a man who's taken major abuse because of his work, weighs in on where we stand in the battle.  He's not very encouraged by the behavior of the politically correct battalions who are active in American life: 

Watching and reading the last 5 days of reports of the Mumbai attacks was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Even after an Islamic terrorist group took credit, TV anchors and reporters assiduously avoided the term Islamic terrorist. They must have consulted with the Thesaurus for the Politically Correct to determine that the word "gunmen" would not offend any jihadist.

Oh, I don't know, Steve.  Do we really want to use "gunmen," and associate Islamic terrorists with the National Rifle Association?  Maybe we should say, "armed partisans"?

On Wednesday, even though everyone knew by then that the perpetrators were jihadists, CNN constantly referred to the terrorists as "extremists"—with no modifier. Hell, they could have been the Basque ETA or the ultra right wing U.S. militia. Then a CNN anchor asked his guest with totally innocence, "Now why would an extremist group target a Jewish house of worship?" Because, my dear politically correct anchor, it was an Islamist terrorist group.

Fairly typical for a CNN anchor.  They're very intellectual, you know.

The most that government officials, in cahoots with mainstream media, could utter were names like Al Qaeda (AQ) or Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT) as potential suspects. Yet even here, the discussions were mindless. One talking head said it could not be AQ since AQ behavior is to have massive simultaneous explosions (as if Al Qaeda follows a pre-programmed script).

Emerson nails it.  We've all heard reporters say that such and such an attack bears the "fingerprints" of a particular group, or doesn't, as if that group can never change its tactics.

Last year, the Departments of State and Homeland Security issued an internal memorandum that henceforth no one could use the term "Islamic terrorists" and could only use the generic term "militant" or "extremist." Even President Bush, who once invoked the term "Islamofacism," now refuses to use the term Islamic terrorist. In Canada, the author Mark Steyn was the subject of three human rights complaints and subsequent trials for calling radical Muslims terrorists and other such "slurs." He won all three tribunals.

You'll notice how the changes made the Islamists love us.  Ask the people of Mumbai.

But Emerson points out that hope is coming, not from our State Department or from The New York Times, but from courageous Muslim journalists:

Aijaz Zaka Syed, a Muslim columnist who wrote a column for Sunday's Khaleej Times Online:\

"It's all very well for us to say Islam has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We can go on deluding ourselves these psychopaths do not represent us..."

"The great religion that preaches and celebrates universal brotherhood, equality of men and peace and justice for all has been hijacked by a demented, miniscule minority. And, as my friend says, only Muslims can solve this problem. Only Muslims can confront these anarchists in their midst..."

"Only they can get their faith freed from the clutches of extremism. This is no time to hide. It's time to stand up and speak out. For the terrorists will continue to speak on our behalf, until we do not speak up. This is no time for silence. Enough is enough!"

Indeed, enough is enough. It is time to start listening to folks like Mr Syed or the courageous Zuhdi Jasser, rather than cave in to the PC crowd.

But those Muslim journalists are a small number compared to the PC legions:

It all comes together. After more than 7 years since 9/11, we can now issue a verdict: Islamic terrorists have won our hearts and minds. Let's thank those who made it happen: the U.S. government, European governments and the mainstream media...

...The Mumbai massacre was a heavily planned plot carried out by Islamic terrorists. Period. Memo to Obama: Until the onus of responsibility is put on Islamic "civil rights" groups that want to ban free speech and claim that anyone who uses the term Islamic terrorist is a racist, there is no hope of winning the battle.

Well said, well said, well said.  Steve Emerson would have cheered last night's briefing by Andrew McCarthy, reported below.  Both men are heroes.

December 3, 2008.      Permalink          

THE GOOD McCARTHYISM

Posted at 7:51 a.m. ET

Andrew C. McCarthy spoke at Hudson New York last night.  That is the New York branch of the Hudson Institute. 

Many of you know Andrew McCarthy from his work at National Review.  He was a major federal prosecutor who led the prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the blind sheikh) and others for terrorism against the United States.  That terrorism included the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. 

Let me just review the points Mr. McCarthy made, because I think they're important, especially as a new administration takes office:

McCarthy is contemptuous of defining terrorism as a criminal-justice problem.  His best quote of the night:  "Want to know if the criminal-justice system is effective against terrorism?  Ask Osama bin Laden."

Other points:

- There is no such thing as "Islam."  It is not monolithic.  It has no worldwide hierarchy.

- Radical Islam does not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans in the United States.  It sees only Americans, so will not see the incoming administration as very different from the last.

- You can't treat a national-security problem as a legal problem.  The threat is too large and the legalities too undecided.

- One of our problems is how we define the enemy.  For example, if a radical Islamist suddenly decides to work through politics, he's immediately labeled a "moderate," even though he is nothing of the kind.

- Hatred of George W. Bush has blinded some people to the serious threat of terrorism.  Many did not want to give the government the power that it needs to suppress terrorism simply because they didn't want Bush to have this power. 

- For a time, during the Clinton years, the criminal-justice system was essentially the entire war on terror.  Clearly, it didn't work.

- The Guantanamo situation has been twisted entirely out of shape.  We've gone from 800 detainees at Guantanamo to 250 today.

- Much of the information the United States has about terrorists we apprehend is reliable and true, but does not meet the standards of evidence of American courts.

- The new president must decide, if he closes Guantanamo, what to do with the dangerous prisoners who are there.  That is the key question, and it hasn't been addressed.  Eighty percent of the prisoners probably cannot be tried in courts because of evidence problems.

- The "civil-liberties community" believes that only it is capable of learning.

- The concern over federal inspection of library records as a result of the Patriot Act is a red herring.  It was actually easier before the Act for the feds to look into library records when there was probable cause.

- We worry far too much about our "reputation" abroad.  McCarthy asks, "Reputation in the eyes of whom?"  He cites the image of someone in a radical Muslim country coming home from the weekly beheadings and saying, "Boy, that Guantanamo Bay really affects me."

- So-called "civil libertarians" should be more realistic about our situation.  If we have another terrorist attack, McCarthy said, today's legal procedures will look like a day at the beach.

- Our current ethic seems to be, "Let's try to win and make them like us."  Not adequate.

It was a great briefing, and I highly commend Andrew McCarthy's book, "Willful Blindness - A Memoir of the Jihad."  You can conveniently order it by clicking on our Amazon.com link at the top of our right-hand column.

McCarthy brings us back to reality.  We hope the new president is listening.

December 3, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 2,  2008

I'M OFF TO A BRIEFING BY ANDREW McCARTHY, WHO PROSECUTED THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER TERRORISTS.  WILL REPORT BACK TO YOU LATER.

DOW CLOSE - AT 4:51 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up 270 points, to 8419.  Hey, let's smile.  The "investors" are back, right?

Well, there's this:  NEW YORK (AP) -- November U.S. vehicle sales at General Motors and Chrysler plunged more than 40 percent, while Ford's sales dropped 31 percent, crushing hopes that the industrywide drop in vehicle demand might be easing as the U.S. automakers prepare to state their second case for a federal bailout.

COMMENT:  The market news is injecting too much irrationality into our economic discussion, and too much fear.  We should begin with plans for a tax cut to stimulate the economy and give people confidence that they'll have some money to spend.  Then proceed from there.

THOUGHTFUL, PRUDENT INVESTING - AT 1:36 P.M. ET:  The Dow, after taking a beating yesterday, is up 263 at this hour.

COMMENT:  Another session filled with thoughtful, prudent investing.  Not.
Wall Street's image is awful, and isn't helped by these see-saw sessions where the main "players" - that's a common Wall Street term - are quick-buck artists, manipulators and short-term grabbers.  Felix Rohatyn, the distinguished investment banker, called the stock market a casino.  It isn't supposed to be, but that's what it's become.  The public regard for free enterprise is damaged by this wild-West mentality.

OBAMA AND THE RIGHT

Posted at 9:04 a.m. ET

Joel Mowbray, one of the best investigative reporters around, examines the results of the election and concludes that President-elect Obama needs the political right to survive because, contrary to the image created by some pundits, the nation didn't change much ideologically in 2008.  This may partially explain why Obama has moved to the center in many of his appointments:

The most under-reported story of the election is that conservative voters provided the margin of victory for Barack Obama—a finding that has dramatic implications for both Democrats and Republicans.

Normally winning with impressive margins in the popular vote and Electoral College would translate into a governing mandate. Obama’s victory was not an ideological one, however. The electorate is almost exactly as center-right as it was in 2004. The Bush 2004 voters who pushed Obama over the top rejected Bush and the GOP, but not conservative principles.

Some proof:

In 2004, a 49%-46% plurality of exit poll respondents said the government should not “do more to solve problems.” In the immediate aftermath of the meltdown on Wall Street that the media blamed on free markets run amok, a slim majority of voters, 51%, thought the government should do more.

And...

Defying conventional wisdom, Obama’s vaunted ground game only boosted liberal and youth turnout by one percent each of the total electorate. A detailed examination of exit polling suggests that the Democrat’s victory primarily was sparked by two key factors:

1) Many conservatives who used to consider themselves Republicans no longer do.

2) Almost one-fifth of Bush 2004 voters chose Obama, with the biggest defectors being conservative-leaning independents: that is “Security Moms” and Catholics...

...Self-identified conservatives in exit polling comprised 34% of voters in both 2004 and 2008, yet the number who called themselves Republican dropped from 37% to 32%.

There are other indications that conservative principles are alive and vigorous in 2008:

Even on what is presumed to be safe liberal territory—the environment—the electorate did not tilt leftward. As reported on the Wall Street Journal web site, “Among five major energy and environmental ballot initiatives from California to Missouri, all but one were voted down.”

Further...

Two key right-leaning constituencies deserted Republicans: “Security Moms” and Catholics. Though the media has made the “gender gap” a household term, the more apt classification was a “marriage gap.” Single women were heavily Democrat, and married women leaned Republican. “Security Moms” became the label for married mothers attracted to the hawkishness of the GOP.

And Catholics:

Falling from Bush’s 44% of the Latino vote to 31% clearly hurt McCain’s figures in the Catholic vote. But that drop alone could not account for much more than half of the loss he experienced overall among Catholics. The bulk of the remaining Catholic voters that switched from Bush in 2004 to Obama this year likely came from cultural conservatives, including so-called values voters and Reagan Democrats.

And the implications for the future:

Unlike most politicians who seek to define themselves sharply, Obama proudly defined himself as whatever different voters wanted him to be. Accomplishing this feat in a heated election was a tall order, but in governing, it becomes nearly impossible. In policy battles, there are winners and losers because lines are drawn, and sides must be taken.

For Obama to maintain the coalition that elected him, he needs to come down on the right side of that line more often than most in his party would like.

From Mowbray's mouth to you-know-whose ears.  Obama needs to maintain that coalition to become a two-term president.  MoveOn.org never elected any president, and Obama's political team knows that.  They can read the numbers. 

Bill Clinton understood the need for centrism, too, and became the first Democratic president since Roosevelt to be elected to two full terms.  Obama's first appointments show a centrist bent.  If he governs center or center-left, and succeeds in his policies, he will probably win again in 2012.  If he veers left, to his ideological roots, he will get applause on the West Side of Manhattan and in the teeming precincts of Hollywood, and be sent back to his gracious Chicago home in four years.

I'll bet center left. 

December 2, 2008.      Permalink           

GEORGIA ON OUR MIND - AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  Please remember that the Georgia runoff for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Saxby Chambliss is today.  It's critical.  The Dems are within two Senate seats of having a filibuster-proof majority.  If Chambliss loses to challenger Jim Martin, that will be one seat, and Minnesota is still undecided.  However, Chambliss is favored.

THE BIG DIP - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy, now officially in recession, may be in the midst of the longest slump in the post- World War II era as job losses mount and credit dries up...

...“We’re going on 12 months already, and we’re just getting started,” said Stephen Stanley, chief U.S. economist at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut.

COMMENT:  Let's see how long it takes, after Mr. Obama assumes office, for the press to stop calling it the Bush recession. A year?  Two years?

RECOLLECTION - AT 7:25 A.M. ET:  It was 66 years ago today that Enrico Fermi and his team achieved the first sustained nuclear chain reaction, working under the west stands of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago.  It was barely more than two and a half years later that the first nuclear device was set off in New Mexico.  We should keep that quick timeline in mind when weighing the seriousness of the Iran nuclear threat.

BAMWATCH + HILLWATCH

Posted at  7:12 a.m. ET

The Wall Street Journal has carefully considered the new romance between President-elect Barack Obama and President-of-the-world Select Hillary Rodham Clinton, and has decided that there may be problems there.  We're inclined to agree, although we're deeply offended that anyone could attribute personal motives to either individual:

Barack Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State is either a political master stroke, or a classic illustration of the signature self-confidence that will come back to haunt him. We're inclined toward the latter view, but then Mr. Obama is the one who has to live with her -- and her husband.

What happened to that old-time respect for our leaders?  Ah, those were the days.

The President-elect's political calculation seems clear enough: Better to have the Clinton machine as allies than as critics on the outside of his Administration.

You don't really believe our new president thinks that way, do you?

These political calculations must be predominant, because Mrs. Clinton brings no special policy expertise to the job. Her best attribute may be her undeniable work ethic. She has focused on foreign policy in her Senate committee assignments, but without much notable influence on policy or events.

But she already knows the dinner customs in so many countries.

It's also strange if Mr. Obama is trying to invoke the Clinton Presidency as a foreign-policy golden age. We recall it mostly as an era of illusory peace as problems festered with too little U.S. attention. Al Qaeda was left unchecked, Saddam Hussein banished U.N. inspectors and exploited Oil for Food, North Korea embarked on a secret nuclear program, Russia's post-Cold War spring faded, and Pakistan's A.Q. Khan spread nuclear-bomb technology around the world.

More quibbling.  These right-wing journalists.

Mr. Obama's biggest gamble is associating his Presidency with the Clinton political circus. At least as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton will have a specific role, as opposed to the ill-defined mandate of a Vice President...

...But that still leaves Bill Clinton and his gift both of irrepressible gab and for inevitable controversy.

Hmm.  Yeah, maybe there's a point there.  Where is Monica, by the way?

Given the Clinton history with the Riadys of Indonesia, Johnny Chung, the Lippo Group and Arkansas compadre Thomas "Mack" McLarty's business travels through the Americas, we hope the President-elect knows what he's getting into. The Senate has an obligation to inspect and make public the Clinton global fund-raising machine check by check, with names, dates and precise amounts.

So many embarrassments, so little time.

In choosing Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is also hiring someone he can't easily fire. This is usually a mistake, as President Bush learned with Colin Powell.

And that hire was a major mistake.  Finally...

...the transition spin that Mr. Obama's Cabinet choices are inspired by Abraham Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" also suggest more than a little hubris. Honest Abe had to deal with jealous advisers and treacherous generals to win the Civil War. We're not sure even that would be adequate preparation for the raucous, uncontrollable political entitlement that has always driven the Clintons.

I wouldn't call that a vote of confidence, would you?  Well, at least Obama could send her on a round-the-world trip lasting four years.  The amen press would define that as a foreign-policy masterstroke.

December 2, 2008.      Permalink