MONDAY,  JUNE 29,  2009

A POLITICAL RESURRECTION? - AT 9:21 P.M. ET:  High on the list of George W. Bush's contributions, for which the press will give him no credit, is the strengthening of our tie with India, the world's most populous democracy.  Here, an Indian columnist writes a column called "Bush was Right After All."  Thus comes the start of a political resurrection, if the media will let it happen:

It is ironical the North Korean leader’s muscle-flexing has taken place only months after a new and supposedly conciliatory resident arrived at the White House. After all, US President Barack Obama’s team made effusive noises about the conduct of foreign policy that would be different from President George W Bush’s sledgehammer, “with us or against us”, approach.

How did North Korea behave in the Bush years? As far back as 2002, Mr Bush named the Pyongyang regime as part of the “Axis of Evil”. In 2003, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and in 2006 tested a nuclear device. The then American President pushed for economic sanctions and used China — the one country with influence on Mr Kim — to bring North Korea to the negotiating table.

North Korea did not give up its clandestine mission. Nevertheless, it checked itself. There were no overt displays of aggression. Mr Kim agreed to shut down some nuclear facilities. He recognised that in Mr Bush he had an implacable foe, one who would hit back and hit back hard if provoked.

Six months after the Republican President left Washington, DC, the North Korean megalomaniac has triggered an East Asian crisis. He has reneged on his promise to close nuclear installations and reverted to Bomb-making.

And the money quote:

What does this tell us about Mr Kim and about political adventurism in general? The North Koreans have indicated they don’t think much of the Obama crowd, they see America’s resolve as weakening. They have also paid a left-handed compliment to Mr Bush —acknowledging he put the fear of god into them.

There are three implications to the crisis. First, it will give others ideas. Teheran has already more or less rebuffed Mr Obama’s offer of talks...

...Second, Mr Obama is being put to test. He came into office with limited experience and with the reputation of being a foreign policy lightweight...

...Third, Afghanistan or Pakistan, North Korea or Iran, even India or China: The more Mr Obama tries to distance himself from the Bush template, the closer he moves towards it.

COMMENT:  This Indian commentator gets it.  A few in the U.S. do, too.  But mountains will have to be moved to get George Bush and Dick Cheney the credit they deserve.  They weren't perfect, and Bush's second term saw him drift from the determination of his first.  But other nations knew there were lines that couldn't be crossed.  I wonder if they think that today.

June 29, 2009   Permalink

SHOCK!  MY SALTS, MY SALTS, PLEASE - AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  What a surprise, from the wise and virtuous rulers of Iran:

CAIRO — Iran’s powerful Guardian Council certified the results of the country’s disputed presidential election on Monday, according to state television, an unexpectedly rapid move that set the stage for more clashes in the streets of Tehran.

The announcement came even as the government continued its efforts to try to quell public anger over the election, with a parliamentary committee reaching out to religious leaders. The government went to far as to extend a deadline for considering complaints of vote rigging — just hours before confirming the vote.

When news of the certification broke, witnesses said, security and militia forces flooded the streets, and protesters who were already out marching down Tehran’s central avenue, Vali Asr, broke into furious chants. Other Iranians, urged on by Web site pleas, went to their rooftops to yell “God is great!” in a show of defiance.

COMMENT:  You'd think that our president, so exercised over Honduras, would express daily outrage at this farce in Iran.  But, you know, certifying an allegedly crooked election probably so much reminded Obama of Chicago that he just got a little dreamy, maybe homesick.  Cut him some slack, will you?

June 29, 2009   Permalink

ANGER, PASSION, DRAMA, ROLL 'EM - AT 7:16 P.M. ET:  The president of the United States and all its territories and possessions is angry.  He is livid.  His emotions overflow.  And the cause?  Why, he doesn't like what was done to the president of Honduras, a leftist wannabe who started acting unconstitutionally and got tossed into the dustbin of history.  Even the mainstream media is trying to get the facts right:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.

The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country's Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.

COMMENT:  Note the last line.  The country's Supreme Court acknowledged that it had ordered the army to remove the president.  Oh, such woe, says Obama:

"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections," Obama said, noting the region's progress in establishing democratic traditions in the past 20 years.

But wait.  Hillary, who has also condemned the action, has lawyered this even further:

Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now.

Maybe the two should talk, and decide on the party line.

What's angering here - and please see our first post of the day on this - is that there's at least a reasonable chance that the ouster was legal.  Zelaya had started taking steps that were clearly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and there are consequences for things like that.

What's also angering is Obama's anger.  Compare please with his "we don't meddle" attitude when Iranian protesters were gunned down in the streets of Tehran.  This Zelaya is an ally of Chavez, Castro, Ortega and just about every left-wing glamour boy in the hemisphere.  Is that why Obama feels for him? 

If Obama is against military "coups," he sure could have picked a better case.  His reaction disheartens us further.  Why is our president always flirting with the wrong side?

June 29, 2009   Permalink

INCOMING MISSILES, NO DEFENSE - AT 9:26 A.M. ET:  While the liberal media shows no interest, some conservative outlets are increasingly vocal on the administration's cutbacks in missile defense, a technology just reaching fruition.  The Washington Times has an excellent editorial on the impact of the Obaman recklessness:

July 4 could be another day that will live in infamy. The Obama administration seized headlines June 18 when the Defense Department stated that the United States would deploy ground- and sea-based missile-defense assets to protect Hawaii. This was a response to North Korea's threat to launch a long-range missile on July 4 toward the islands. However, new information suggests that the administration is bluffing and our defenses are inadequate to get the job done.

And...

The Obama administration is stuck in the past on missile defense, repeating worn-out arguments about unproven technologies and destabilizing effects. The Defense Department's 2010 budget proposal cut missile defense by $1.2 billion, and congressional Democrats rebuffed Republican attempts to restore the funding. Justification for the cuts was led by Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, California Democrat, who is the newly confirmed undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. Ms. Tauscher will play a major role in missile-defense policy.

That should make your day.  Ellen O. Tauscher is watching out for us.

The Obama administration also has cut funding for the European missile-defense shield, leaving our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic in the lurch after they took a major political risk to support the program.

Who cares about allies?  We have sophisticates running America now, intellectuals who go to the best parties.  They understand things that we don't.  They believe an enemy is a friend you haven't made yet.  These are the good people.  Who are we to disagree?

The Obama administration's hostility to missile defense is inexplicable. The missile threat is growing, and defensive technology is increasingly effective, yet the Obama team has dug in stubbornly behind a losing strategy that emboldens our enemies and places us in greater danger. No wonder Hawaiians are nervous.

COMMENT:  I disagree that the Obaman hostility to missile defense is inexplicable.  It's entirely explainable by the very philosophy of many in this administration.  These are people who believe the Cold War was as much our fault as that of the Soviets, that 9-11 was a reaction to our misguided policies, that national defense really exists only to help corporations, and that Vietnam is better off under the Communists.  And they think anyone who disagrees is stupid.  They don't take missile defense seriously because it just isn't part of their world.

June 29, 2009   Permalink

THE DEADLINE NEARS - AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  It doesn't seem to register with the American public, possibly because the press hasn't emphasized it, but this is a momentous week in Iraq, and for the American effort there.  Our forces have until tomorrow to withdraw from major urban centers.  We are getting some reassurance from our commander, but concern is still in order:

Gen. Ray Odierno, the American commander in Iraq, said Sunday that Iraq’s military and police units were ready to operate on their own, ahead of Tuesday’s deadline for the withdrawal of American combat troops from the country’s cities and towns.

“I do believe they’re ready,” General Odierno said from Baghdad on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “They’ve been working towards this for a long time. And security remains good.”

American troop strength is scheduled to stay at roughly 130,000 until September, with most of the forces living in operating bases away from cities, military officials say. The Iraqis will be able to call on American support if needed.

There's been an upsurge in terror attacks in Iraq as the deadline nears:

The deadline for the pullout from cities has concerned some Iraqi officers and provoked uncertainty among Iraqis who worry that the withdrawal of American troops will invite more violence.

COMMENT:  This is another test for Obama.  If we need to send troops back to some urban centers, will he do it?  Will he do everything to insure victory?  We recall that, in 1975, in an act of profound dishonor, the United States cut off aid to South Vietnam, insuring a victory by the enemy.  We were "tired" of the struggle.  It took years, and the election of Ronald Reagan, to restore American credibility.  While Democrats instigated that cutoff, appeasing their leftist base, some Republicans went along.

The months ahead will be critical in Iraq.  Obama failed miserably in his first response to the Iranian revolt.  Let's see how he does next door.

June 29, 2009   Permalink

IRAN - AT 7:29 A.M. ET:  There were new street protests in Iran yesterday, but the oppression continues even off the streets.  Reliable reporter Martin Fletcher documents Iran's agony for the Times of London:

More than 2,000 Iranians have been arrested and hundreds more have disappeared since the regime decided to crush dissent after the disputed presidential election, a leading human rights organisation said yesterday.

“A climate of terror and of fear reigns in Iran today,” the International Federation for Human Rights , an umbrella body for 155 human rights organisations, said as it released the startling figures.

Last night 3,000 protesters tried to gather outside a mosque in Tehran where they believed that Mir Hossein Mousavi, the defeated presidential candidate, was going to speak. The police rapidly dispersed them and Mr Mousavi never appeared.

Having largely suppressed such protests, the security forces are engaged in a purge of dissidents in an apparent effort to decapitate Mr Mousavi’s so-called green movement.

And what is America's reaction to this obscenity?  Now that the president has made some "tough" statements to strengthen his poll numbers, his appointees crave business as usual, as the Israeli press reports:

Despite questions about the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election and his belligerent anti-American rhetoric, the White House remains open to discussions with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

"It's in the United States' national interest to make sure that we have employed all elements at our disposal, including diplomacy, to prevent Iran from achieving that nuclear capacity," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday.

COMMENT:  Yeah, right.  The Obama administration sure looks like it's willing to employ all elements at our disposal to stop an Iranian nuke.  These are really men and women of steel.  Tigers all.

The illusions continue, even as Iran arrests dissenters by the truckload.   Obama really believes the Iranian "leaders" will negotiate an acceptable nuclear deal with him, apparently because he is The One.  But they've already rejected every overture.

My own suspicion is that Obama will try to get some piece of paper out of the Iranians, Chamberlain style, to present to the American people before the 2010 midterms.  He will contrast his "success" with the "belligerence" of BUSH (!!).  Of course, the paper will have as many holes as Swiss cheese, but a compliant press will still portray it as a "successful first step."  I stress that this is my speculation, but I'd bet on it.

June 29, 2009   Permalink

HONDURAN TRUTHS - AT 7:02 A.M. ET:  The Wall Street Journal, possibly the nation's best newspaper, shines this morning with several important pieces.  Its Latin American correspondent, Mary Anastasia O'Grady (love that name) sets the record straight on the so-called "coup" in Honduras, which has been denounced by the Obamans.  (Strange, how they're suddenly meddling.  When Iran erupted, they said they couldn't get involved.)  It's also been denounced by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro, so once again Barack Obama finds himself in great company.  The Journal's report:

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

The story documents Zelaya's abuse of the Honduran constitution and demonstrates that the military acted correctly in removing him, rather follow his illegal orders.  In the United States we would respect military men who refused to follow unlawful orders.  But apparently, the Obamans have a different standard for one of their cherished leftist-led nations:

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Saul Alinsky and the Chicago radicals who tutored both Clinton and Obama must be so proud, as they look down from Heaven or up from...well, you know.

So there we have it.  The United States, so prissy about even saying a word in support of Iranian freedom fighters, now goes full barrel in support of a power-grabbing autocrat of the left.

Ah yes, Obama will make us proud again.

June 29, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  JUNE 28,  2009

GOP TROUBLES - AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  Republicans are clearly concerned about the future of their party, and for good reason, as The Politico reports:

Two prominent GOP voices on the Sunday talk shows, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.), issued public warnings that the party is losing ground with young people.

"Demographically and with young people we’ve got our work cut out for us," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We’ll do well in 2010 but I’m worried about 20 years from now for us to do better—to be a party not a club—we’re going to have to adjust."

Graham didn't elaborate on exactly where those adjustments should be made, but he said he saw young people, who are largely loyal to Obama, paying the biggest price for some of the president's policies.

"The biggest loser for 18-to-34 year olds, is my opinion, the Obama agenda. They’re the ones that are going to have to pay for this massive government. They’re the ones that are going to lose choice in health care," Graham said.

COMMENT:  What the Republican Party must finally confront is the enormous damage done by liberal, and even leftist, control of the education system. In many areas of the country, kids are taught that liberal politics are "normal," whereas conservative politics are, count 'em, 1) racist, 2) sexist, 3) imperialist, 4) militarist, 5) and homophobic.  That is certainly taught in many colleges, and, increasingly, in "progressive" high schools.  There has to be an impact on young minds.

To cite an example, the radical Bill Ayers, tutor to Barack Obama, is considered a respected and influential "educator."

Republicans have been too polite about this.  They won't ask any serious questions about how federal aid to education is being spent.  They should.  They can't depend on the press, which is in the tank for the colleges the journalists attended.  (Who wants to knock his own alma mater in print?)

I hate to quote Hitler, but, sadly, he was a master of propaganda.  He always stressed the importance of controlling the minds of the young.  The left learned that lesson in the U.S.  Conservatives did not.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

HERE IT COMES - AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  Stuff costs money.  Many in Washington don't seem to realize that, and some of the people who vote for them don't realize it either.  But when Washington spends, Washington must tax, even if it means breaking pledges.  From The Politico:

The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

“The president had said in the past that he doesn't believe taxing health care benefits at any level is necessarily the best way to go here. He still believes that, but there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going. We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”

COMMENT:  Might as well get the checkbook out.  We know what's coming, despite the doubletalk.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

THE GREAT MAN WAS RIGHT - AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  In his farewell address upon leaving the presidency - the famous "industrial-military complex" speech - Dwight E. Eisenhower demonstrated the wisdom that has caused his stock to rise substantially among historians.  The industrial-military complex part has had the starring role because the political left has twisted it out of shape, and misrepresented it for its own ends.  (Eisenhower was actually talking about the need for an industrial-military complex, but was simply warning of potential dangers.)

But in that speech Eisenhower also warned against the corrupting effects of federal grants to science, where the grant, not the science, controls the direction of the research.  The New York Times has begun a promising series that examines precisely that point.  I wonder if Ike will even be mentioned:

Among the recent research grants awarded by the National Cancer Institute is one for a study asking whether people who are especially responsive to good-tasting food have the most difficulty staying on a diet. Another study will assess a Web-based program that encourages families to choose more healthful foods.

Many other grants involve biological research unlikely to break new ground. For example, one project asks whether a laboratory discovery involving colon cancer also applies to breast cancer. But even if it does apply, there is no treatment yet that exploits it.

The cancer institute has spent $105 billion since President Richard M. Nixon declared war on the disease in 1971. The American Cancer Society, the largest private financer of cancer research, has spent about $3.4 billion on research grants since 1946.

Yet the fight against cancer is going slower than most had hoped, with only small changes in the death rate in the almost 40 years since it began.

COMMENT:  Well worth reading.  Maybe we'll learn that, when money talks, it doesn't always tell the truth.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

IRAN AND EUROPE - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  One of the most fascinating things about the Iran insurrection is that European countries, including Britain, were sronger in their support for it, at first, than was the United States.  Americans should be embarrassed over our president's sluggish performance at a time when Washington's support for the demonstrators may have made a difference.

But is that changing?  Britain is today protesting the arrest of Iranian employees of its Tehran embassy:

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Sunday demanded the release of eight Iranian British Embassy employees detained by Iranian authorities in Teheran, warning Iran that "continued harassment will be met by a strong and united EU response."

Miliband flatly rejected Iranian claims that the embassy employees were involved in anti-government protests in the country.

Well, that's fine, although the "strong and united EU response" part seems a bit vague.  And other voices, the standard European voices of appeasement, are now being heard in the EU:

Contrastingly, the EU remained eager to restart talks with Iran on the country's nuclear program despite its crackdown on protesters following the presidential elections, the bloc's foreign policy chief said Sunday.

Javier Solana said the EU did not want to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, but would continue its criticism of the conduct of the security forces and the arrests of demonstrators.

Still, the EU also wants to leave the door open for the resumption of the dialogue with Teheran on its nuclear program, he said.

COMMENT:  Resumption of dialogue?  This dialogue has gone on for six years, and has gotten nowhere.  Precisely what is it that the professional diplomats want to "resume"?  Sitting at a table?  Having lunch with Iranians? 

Even the Obama administration, where weakness has been a sacred goal, is beginning to get the message from Tehran and is backing off from quick engagement with the regime.  But count on some Europeans to try to get back to business as usual.

Push will come to shove in the fall.  Mr. Obama told us that there must be progress in regard to the Iranian nuclear program by December.  What will happen if there isn't, or were those just words?  And by then the 2010 political campaign will have begun.  Which way will the American people go? 

Crunch time ahead.

June 28, 2009   Permalink

MICHELLE RISING - AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  The Times of London has picked up the Washington buzz that Michelle Obama is making her move into Hillaryland:

Over the past five months Michelle Obama has basked in some of the most flattering reviews ever earned by an American first lady. Yet the first stirrings of discontent are beginning to surface as President Barack Obama’s wife emerges from her newly installed White House vegetable garden in search of a meatier political role.

Reports last week that she is seeking to expand her influence in her husband’s administration set alarm bells ringing among Democratic veterans.

Despite denials from White House officials that Michelle Obama is suffering from “Hillary-itis” — a burning desire to help her husband run the country — her long-running interest in healthcare has raised painful memories of 1994, when Hillary Clinton presided over a political debacle as her health reform proposals collapsed in Congress.

COMMENT:  One key element to watch here is when, or whether, the delicate issue of race begins to fade away, and the Obamas are seen as just another president and first lady.  Reluctance to criticize them has, in some circles, clearly been tied to awkwardness about race.  But I sense that the awkwardness is starting, just starting, to fade. 

Remember that Hillary harbored, and still harbors, presidential ambitions.  Can Michelle be far behind? 

June 28, 2009   Permalink