THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 3,  2009

IRAN DEADLINE - AT 11:09 P.M. ET:  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated today that Iran has only until the end of this month to show progress in nuclear talks with the West. 

That's boilerplate tough talk, but what precisely will happen at the end of the month?  The United States has been hinting at stronger sanctions, even "crippling" sanctions, to cite Hillary Clinton's language.  But that would require action by the UN Security Council.  China, which has veto power, has already said that it's opposed to further sanctions.  There's been some optimism about the Russians...until today, when Vladimir Putin said that Russia had no proof that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.  Not a great moment for our side.

The president was barely able to make a decision on Afghanistan.  In the absence of agreement on firmer sanctions, Iran will be much harder.  At least the Afghan government is formally on our side, as is the Iraqi government.  The Iranian regime is one of the most hostile in the world. 

If sanctions fail, or cannot be enhanced, there remain very few options, one of them being an application of military power.  This could take the form of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities - those that we know about - or could involve a naval blockade, or even commando raids. 

But would Obama, tied down in Afghanistan, have the stomach?  Could we take on another Muslim country, even one whose engineering progress threatens us? 

And what will the Israelis, who feel their existence threatened, do in the face of Western weakness?

Those are 2010 questions.  Add them to the 2010 midterms, and we have quite a year coming up.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

FEEL THEIR PAIN, PLEASE FEEL THEIR PAIN - AT 7:44 P.M. ET:  The people cited in this Washington Post piece give an entirely new meaning to the term "classless society."  It is incredible that any person of minimal intelligence can speak this way:

Some of President Obama's wealthiest supporters are becoming a bit whiny, and it has nothing to do with policy.

Tickets for tours of the presidential residence are scarce, even for those who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for last year's campaign. Private fundraisers tend to be brief, businesslike affairs. And there have been no sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, weekends at Camp David or intimate lunches with the first couple.

I weep for them, I cry.

Nearly a year into his presidency, that pattern has led some top Democratic donors across the country to grumble that they aren't getting the kind of personal attention from Obama and special access to the White House that they became used to during the eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

We remember that high-toned presidency. 

"I've had almost no communication with the White House," said Chris Korge, a top Hillary Clinton supporter from Miami who later collected $5.5 million for Obama, making him one of the president's biggest fundraisers.

Either, apparently, has General McChrystal.

Korge said his only visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was a St. Patrick's Day event, and he complained in a recent interview that the administration has done little to reward the president's donors or tap into their experience and wisdom.

"There is no connection between the administration and money people," he said. "If they do have any connection . . . it is very limited as far as the fun stuff is concerned."

COMMENT:  Unbelievable, just unbelievable.  You'd think, especially at a time of such economic pain, that people would be embarrassed to speak this way.  Whatever happened to good taste?

December 3, 2009   Permalink 

PUBLIC AGAINST SINGLE PAYER FOR HEALTH CARE - AT 6:40 P.M. ET:  With the focus on the Afghanistan war, let's not forget that the Senate is debating health-care legislation, with the Dem leaership determined to pass something, if only a bill requiring shinier stethoscopes. 

It's pretty much agreed that a large faction of Congressional Democrats want eventually to have the government act as a single payer for health care, the structure in many, more socialistic countries.  The public, according to Rasmussen, isn't buying:

Only 27% of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. That’s down five points from August.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% are opposed to a single-payer system and another 12% are undecided.

Most Democrats (54%) favor this type of system, though 37% are opposed. Most Republicans (87%) and voters not affiliated with either party (64%) are opposed to the idea.

There is little difference in opinion between those voters who currently have health insurance and those who do not.

COMMENT:  One feature of the current health-care debate is the utter contempt many Democrats have shown for public feelings.  They have a mama-knows-best -- excuse me, a gender-neutral-parent-knows- best -- attitude.  They will not be swayed or reasoned with.

This is something that will have to be dealt with at the polls next year.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE INSIDE - AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  As many readers know, Urgent Agenda has a private source on Afghanistan, an American with relevant expertise who has traveled frequently to the country and knows the region.  This is what our source says about Obama's West Point speech:

Obviously, his "withdrawal in eighteen months" codicil greatly encourages the Taliban (hey, all we have to do is wait another 18 months!!!).  But it will give the Afghans a perverse incentive to let things get WORSE, not make them better.  They know they can't improve nearly enough in the short term, but will fear that any marginal improvement will be seized upon by the Obama Administration as excuse to continue with the withdrawal plan.  They may decide that a descent into chaos will be the only thing that will keep us longer term.  They will think that the last thing Obama wants to do is run a campaign during which he must defend his abandoning the Afghans to disaster.  

My other comments are conventional.  Obama is not leading decisively:  too few troops to actually do the job but close enough to McChrystal's request to defend his right flank, balanced by a pledge to withdraw soon to defend his left.  I didn't see anything to make me believe he is determined to win.  He seems to be determined to be able to say, "Well, at least I tried" during the next campaign.

Well said.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

SON OF CLIMATEGATE, COMING TO A THEATER NEAR YOU - AT 7:52 A.M. ET:  Even though the mainstream media is in full denial mode over revelations of data tampering amongst the high priests of the Church of Global Warming, the scandal may yet reach a new level, as The Washington Times reports:

The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.

NASA has been one of the chief sales agents for global warming.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.

Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

COMMENT:  We've called before at Urgent Agenda for major investigations, but I doubt if we'll get them.  President Obama is off soon to the global-warming conference in Copenhagen, where he certainly can't announce that skeptics deserve a voice.  He'll then proceed to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize, which he should donate to the 30,000 troops he's sending to Afghanistan.  You can be sure that the Nobel crowd just loves global warming.  They probably all have thermometers mounted on their foreheads.

This story will grow, with or without the mainstream media.  And Americans may learn that "scientists" aren't always right, and that science continuously evolves.

December 3, 2009  Permalink

THOMPSON WEIGHS IN - IS HE RUNNING IN 2012? - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  Former Senator Fred Thompson ran a lackluster campaign for the Republican nomination last year, but there've been some signs recently that he plans a revised run in 2012.  At his best, he can be an excellent candidate, as these caustic remarks on Obama's Afghanistan speech demonstrate.  From NRO:

I was wondering how he was going to pull off the famous Obama split.
He did it chronologically, and in two ways.

First, in the speech itself:
In the first part of his speech he sounded like Winston Churchill.
In the second part of his speech, he sounded like Lady Churchill.

Secondly, with regard to his course of action:
Commit troops for the Right, and then announce their withdrawal prematurely,
in time for the 2012 election — for the Left.

It was clear for the world to see that we are without the most important ingredient for a chance of success: a determined president whose heart is in the effort.

COMMENT:  Fred said it better than anyone else.  Now, if we can have more of this, and a more animated guy on camera than we saw last year, he's got a shot.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

GOP I.D. GAINS - AT 7:28 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog, reports on dramatic changes in party identification during the first year of the Age of Obama:

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports finds that despite -- or perhaps because of -- legislative progress on President Obama's 2009 keynote issue of healthcare reform, among other issues, this autumn, the number of adult Americans calling themselves Democrats fell by almost 2 whole points just in the month of November.

A year after hope, change and jubilation filled the party ranks, those Americans considering themselves Democrats is now only 36%.

That's the lowest percentage in 48 months.

The percentage calling themselves Republican is lower -- 33.1%. However, unlike the Democrats, that number is increasing, up from 31.9% the previous month.

What's particularly encouraging is that the unaffiliated, 30.8%, are tilting rightward in most polls.  Indeed, the Obama brigade's greatest losses are among independents.

All the factors are in place for the out-party to make gains among unhappy -- and often unemployed -- voters. But the one indicator that has caused analysts to hedge their current bets about maintaining that pattern in 2010 has been the low number of Americans calling themselves Republicans after the later Bush years when the party abandoned its conservative fiscal roots.

However, after an active legislative fall with Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid prominent in the media, along with immense spending and deficit numbers, November's poll shows the GOP percentage now increasing, even with the party still leaderless nationally.

As a result, the current gap in party identifiers is only 2.9%, the smallest since December, 2007.

COMMENT:  Sounds good, but don't underestimate the political abilities of the Obama White House.  At the same time, those abilities were tested when Obama was a blank slate.  This political team hasn't had to try to sell a president or party one year into a highly contentious presidential term.

But the Republicans still need a set of clear principles to run on, and a slate of attractive candidates.  The homework still hasn't been done.  They cannot depend on Democratic unpopularity, which can turn around quickly.

What we have coming up are the most exciting midterm elections in memory.

December 3, 2009   Permalink

NBC TO CHANGE HANDS - AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Now it's official, as The New York Times reports:

After nearly eight months of negotiations, Comcast, the nation’s largest cable operator, finally reached an agreement on Thursday to acquire the television network, NBC Universal, from the General Electric Company in a $30 billion deal.

They overpaid, but people getting involved in Hollywood almost always do. 

The deal, which has been known for months, was announced Thursday morning. Almost immediately, the transaction reshapes the nation’s entertainment industry even as it raises the sector’s anxieties about the future.

Here comes the hype:

In a statement, Brian Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast, called the deal “a perfect fit for Comcast and will allow us to become a leader in the development and distribution of multiplatform ‘anytime, anywhere’ media that American consumers are demanding.”

Oh, dear God, when they start talking like that you know they're easy prey for the Hollywood horribles.

Jeff Zucker, the current head of NBC, will stay on as chief executive and would report to the chief executive of Comcast, Steve Burke. In a statement released by the companies Monday morning, Mr. Zucker called the deal the “start of a new era” for NBC.

That statement reflects the level of creativity we've seen from NBC recently.

Look, our main interest is in NBC News, which needs new direction and new standards.  We'll hope for the best.

NBC's hope:  Resurrect Johnny Carson!

December 3, 2009   Permalink

NOTHING TO SEE, FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE - AT 7:06 A.M. ET:  There has been a bit of bother in Damascus.  From Reuters:

Syria on Thursday denied terrorism was behind a bomb blast that ripped through a bus carrying Iranian pilgrims near a major Shi'ite religious shrine in Damascus, leaving at least six dead.

"There was no terrorism factor behind the bus incident," Syrian Interior Minister Said Sammour said. "The bus entered a petrol station to have one of its burst tires inflated and the tire exploded. Three people were killed."

Those Syrian tires.  So powerful.

The blast took place as Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, was visiting Damascus for meetings with Syrian officials.

"Body parts are still scattered around the bus," a witness told Reuters. Several more people were wounded in the explosion in the Sayyeda Zainab area in Damascus.

COMMENT:   We'll be following this.  There are a number of forces in the Mideast who would like to separate Syria from Iran.  And the Iranian nuclear issue is coming to a head.

By the way, why would Iran's top nuclear negotiator be visiting Damascus?  Is Iran helping Syria with its nuclear program, part of which was blown away by the Israelis last year? 

Very intriguing story, and I don't think we've heard the end of it.

December 3,  2009    Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER 2,  2009

THEY'RE ONTO HIM - AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  The Brits, or at least the Brits outside the loony left, are on to Obama.  I get the sense from the international press that the French - the ones who don't hang out in cafes with American students spending their junior years abroad - are getting the picture as well.  The Israelis had his number from day one.  Now the Germans seem to be well past the worship stage.  This from Spiegel Online, has been making the rounds:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

Nothing like a compliment.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

I did not read anywhere else that the cadets were prompted.  Inappropriate, in my view. 

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Ouch.  And...

It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

Yeah, and remember that Bill Clinton was "the man from Hope."  Must be something in the water.

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

That was not an endorsement.  Despite all its apparent softness, and its very real treachery in negotiations and foreign policy, Europe still wants a strong American president.  Maybe now the Europeans will start realizing the value of George Bush.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE GOOD GUYS FIGHT BACK - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  One of the nasty things about this administration is its attempt to blame its problems on President Bush.  I don't recall a president who was less gracious toward his predecessor than is Barack Obama.  Even on matters of war and peace, where you'd expect an attempt at a show of bipartisanship, there is none.

But the good guys are fighting back.  Dick Cheney, a devoted public servant, has been at the head of the line, and this country can thank him for joining the battle.  Now, former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld speaks out, and challenges the Obamans on the facts, as Fox News reports:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders' repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan.

In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a "bald misstatement" and "disservice" that cannot go unanswered.

"Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response," Rumsfeld said in a written statement. "I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006."

And...

Rumsfeld said in his statement the White House should make public any such requests if they exist to back up the allegation.

"The president's assertion does a disservice to the truth and, in particular, to the thousands of men and women in uniform who have fought, served and sacrificed in Afghanistan," Rumsfeld said.

He urged Congress to review the claim in the upcoming debate to "determine exactly what requests were made, who made them, and where and why in the chain of command they were denied."

COMMENT:  Oh, that is delicious.  I love it when the good guys demand proof from those who throw around charges.  Now watch the evasions begin.  Congress, under the Dems, will never investigate.  The White House will deflect.

But if Dick and Don keep it up, they will make progress.  Cheney's approval ratings have already risen.  The American people do listen, and they're no longer dazzled by The One.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

MORRIS HIGH ON GOP CHANCES - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  Analyst Dick Morris goes out on a limb about 2010, analyzing the data and making a startling prediction:

Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical.

All polls have Obama below 50 percent and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43 percent in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52 percent of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.

This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress.

We're not too high on predictions here, and Morris's track record is mixed, but he does present a case worth considering, as long as we label it as informed speculation:

In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could be the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.

A deluge swamps all boats.

That assumes that the sun shines fully on the Republicans.  But don't dismiss the White House political operation, the impact of a liberal press, and possible improvement in the economy.  A week is a lifetime in politics.

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.

When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, it's many of the same people!

COMMENT:  I have myself noticed that many of the Obama boosters I know are noticeably quieter this year than last.  And, by the way, not all of them are on the left.  Some are moderates who simply became enamored of The One, and now see that they were rolled.

We can be optimistic.  We also have to work hard.

December 1, 2009     Permalink

GOP STRONG IN GENERIC POLL - AT 6:30 P.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen is reporting that the GOP retains a solid lead the generic congressional ballot, indicating which party likely voters prefer in 2010 congressional races:

Republican candidates have a seven-point lead over Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Support for the candidates from both parties remains unchanged from last week.
Republicans have held the lead for over four months now. Democrats currently have majority control of both the House and Senate.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 43% to 24%.

COMMENT:  It is true that other polls show more strength for the Democrats on the generic ballot, but I believe Rasmussen's methodology has proved more reliable.  The year 2010 could provide a great opportunity for Republicans, if they run a solid campaign, have clear ideas, and recruit attractive candidates under the age of 95.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

SILLY SEASON - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The silly season has already begun on the anti-war left in Congress.  The season was toasted in by, of course, a member of the Massachusetts delegation.  This will no doubt earn the lucky guy an invitation to speak before some group at Harvard.  From The Politico:

Anti-war lawmakers in Congress are pressing for an early vote on funding for new troops in Afghanistan so that President Barack Obama’s policy can be tested before thousands of additional Marines and soldiers are sent into combat.

Obama outlined his new strategy in a nationally televised speech from West Point on Tuesday night, and the administration expects to add 30,000 troops by the end of next summer, bringing the total U.S. force to more than 100,000.

“Let us have this debate before he moves forward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in an interview Tuesday. “I remember the debates on Iraq. Bush already had the troops there, and then we were debating. ... I’d like it to be before we escalate one single American troop over there.”

That’s a tall order, since the first Marine units are expected to be deployed later this month, but a January or February war funding debate can’t be ruled out and would come before most of the new troops have been sent to Afghanistan.

COMMENT:  The loonies will not give up.  They still can't admit that the surge in Iraq worked.  They still can't admit that we have serious national-security issue.  And yes, they may try for a debate at the start of the year.  The Democratic left generally holds safe seats in the House.  They're not afraid of the 2010 midterms.  It's the responsible moderates who are sweating.

McGovern will be joined by the smooth-talking and Marxist Barbara Lee of California, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members are also proving problematical for Mr. Obama.  The president mentioned last night that there was only one vote in Congress against military action after 9-11.  That vote belonged to Barbara Lee, and, when not singing the praises of Fidel Castro, she's attacking national defense.

The House has an Out-of-Iraq Caucus.  That has now morphed into an Out-of-Afghanistan caucus.  Soon it'll be an Out-of-Kansas Caucus. 

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE OTHER CRISIS - AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Britain's Con Coughlin, who writes frequently about security affairs, warns us that the other crisis - Iran - is boiling.  This provides still one more opportunity for the Democratic Party's left wing to oppose any effective action.  From The Telegraph:

The best that can be said about Iran's announcement that it intends to build a further 10 uranium enrichment facilities is that at least we are now clear about its intentions.

For much of the past year, the West has been labouring under the illusion that Iran might somehow be coaxed into negotiating a resolution to the international crisis over its nuclear programme. Barack Obama, in particular, has gone out of his way since taking office last January to try to persuade Tehran to end the decades of anti-American hostility that have defined Iran's approach to Washington since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

And how successful The One has been!

But all the President has got in return is a hardening of Tehran's position, resulting in an announcement that, even by Iranian standards, represents a dramatic escalation in the country's nuclear ambitions.

We're glad someone in the press noticed.  And all Coughlin will get for this is to be labeled a warmonger by the journalistic left.

Precisely why the world's fourth largest oil producer is so obsessed with developing nuclear power has never been adequately explained by the government. All Mr Ahmadinejad and other senior members of the regime ever say when pressed is that Iran has an inalienable right to develop nuclear power if it chooses, and that is how it intends to meet its future energy needs.

And...

Even Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA director-general, concedes that his inspectors have reached a "dead end" in their attempts to unravel Iran's true nuclear intentions. During his 12-year tenure as head of the IAEA, Mr ElBaradei has bent over backwards to accommodate Tehran, often blocking publication of sensitive material that might embarrass the Iranians in the hope that he could persuade them to make a full disclosure of their programme.

For this great contribution to mankind, ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which apparently is given for cynicism and ineffectiveness.

The fact that both Russia and China now appear to be prepared to take a tougher line with Tehran is about the only positive development to emerge from this otherwise sorry saga. This is partly due to Mr Obama's intense diplomatic efforts to court both Moscow and Beijing, and a growing awareness that, unless urgent action is taken soon, the world will wake up one morning and find that the ayatollahs have successfully tested an atom bomb.

A bit exaggerated.  Russia is taking a tougher line, and has indicated that it might agree to more sanctions.  China is stating directly that increased sanctions are not on the agenda.

Time is clearly not on the side of those attempting to talk Iran round. For the past six years, the West has been involved in intensive negotiations with Tehran to resolve this dispute, but all that has happened is that Iran has dramatically increased its nuclear capability while the West has received nothing in return.

This is a situation that can no longer be allowed to continue. If Iran wishes to persist with its defiant attitude, then it must face the consequences.

The right words.  But which government is listening?

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has argued in favour of "crippling" sanctions being imposed against Iran, and urgent action should now be taken to implement them as soon as possible, in a last-ditch effort to bring Tehran to its senses. Otherwise the consequences are too dreadful to contemplate.

COMMENT:  And if Clinton doesn't get what she presumably wants, she should resign her position and go public.  But I don't think she has the guts, or the character. 

Iran is even more serious than Afghanistan.  But the word we hear from Washington is that the usual suspects down there are preparing to "live with" a nuclear Iran.  That's not the issue.  We can "live with" a nuclear Iran.  The issue is whether we die with it.

December 2, 2009   Permalink

THE ENEMY - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  If you were the enemy in Afghanistan, what would you be thinking this morning?  Certainly, you'd be concerned about the 30,000 new American troops heading into your neighborhood, for they are capable, and led by enlightened commanders like Petraeus and McChrystal.

But you'd also know that time is on your side.  After all, your opponent's president has just given you the gift of a timetable for withdrawal, so you know his heart isn't in the battle.  You know, as Andrew Malcolm noted below, that your opponent's president never mentioned the word "victory," apparently banned as beneath the College Board level of the new administration.  You know that the president's own party is against him.

You know that the North Vietnamese waited out the Americans and watched the "anti-war" red left destroy their war effort.

You know that the president's party will probably suffer losses in the 2010 midterms, but that those defeated are likely to be moderate Democrats in swing districts, not the leftists who are now the core of the party.

You know that the American economy is weak, and that your opponent's president is spending his country into bankruptcy.

You know that your opponent's educational institutions are filled with people who believe 9-11 was America's fault, and teach that to children.

You know that your opponent's president is about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and that it will go to his head.

And, although fearful of what the Americans can pour on you in the next 18 months, you take out a calendar and start marking off those months.

And you smile.  Very broadly.

December 2, 2009   Permalink 

THE MORNING AFTER - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket, gives the best written summary of the meaning of last night's presidential address:

President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his primetime Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night.

He said "al Qaeda" 22 times.

He mentioned the "Taliban" 12 times.

And here's how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word "victory" -- 0.

That telling omission says more than anything about Obama's 322d day in office when he gave his first major address as the United States' commander-in-chief.

Through a clever, timely use of leaks late Monday and suggestive advance excerpts Tuesday afternoon, the Obama White House communications team used the public and news media's intense curiosity about his war decisions to steer public attention toward the number of additional American troops he'll dispatch into that war-torn land in the first half of 2010.

That number is 30,000, significantly less than some reported numbers requested by the ground commander. But added to the existing 68,000 there and taken out of context, that would appear....

...to show a strong commitment to persevering in the bloody struggle, now entering its ninth year, that has claimed 936 American lives and another 596 allies, mainly Canadians and Brits.

But reading the speech over and over overnight, another, far stronger impression comes through: Limits.

As former White House communications strategist David Gergen puts it succinctly, "The cavalry is coming. But not for long."

COMMENT:  Increasingly, that is the impression that analysts are getting.  The speech was very well delivered, in an Adlai Stevenson sort of way.  The president, after all, is a fine speaker.  But, also in an Adlai Stevenson sort of way, you have to look carefully at the substance, or lack of it.

Obama's was instead a well-crafted, nicely-wrapped political speech that calmly attempts to give something to everybody, those concerned over national security and his Democratic Party's antiwar left.

I suspect that the president will get a slight bump in the polls for his impressive theatrical performance, but that it won't last long.  It is remarkable to see how many analysts have become cynical about this president and the way he goes about things.  They may have looked down on George W. Bush because he didn't sound like the ideal of an Ivy League president who strummed a 60's guitar, but it was hard to be cynical about Bush.  What you saw is what you got.

December 2, 2009   Permalink