Our second subscription drive ended Friday.  Our critical drive now is to build readership.  We simply must double or triple our readership to become stable.  Please e-mail or speak to friends and relatives about Urgent Agenda.  We're gratified by the readers who have done so, and sent us copies of their e-mails.  The more we build, the better our product.

-----------------------------------------------------

SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Answers to the last "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

----------------------------------------------------

Audio commentaries are posted periodically.

I HAVE A NEW PIECE UP AT POWER LINE TODAY, ABOUT THE AMERICAN CAR INDUSTRY.  IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ IT, GO HERE.

MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 10,  2008

UPDATE AT 8:20 P.M. ET:  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Michelle Obama visited at least two well-known private schools Monday as she and President-elect Obama prepare to move their two young daughters to the White House in January.

COMMENT:  No public schools for the Obamas, unlike those peasants who voted for The One.  What will the teachers' unions say?
 

REAGAN LIVES!

Posted at 7:34 p.m. ET

He does live, at least according to Scott Rasmussen, who emerged from the election with one of the most accurate polling records.  Ras is surrounded by a glow.

Rasmussen tries to throw some accuracy at the fantasies that have emerged on the left about the balloting.  No, we apparently did not provide a Marxist mandate.

Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns. He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates.

Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. His victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

Just don't tell that to the Daily Kos.  Those are sensitive, unstable people over there. Please do no harm.

Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.

Down the campaign homestretch, Mr. Obama's tax-cutting promise became his clearest policy position. Eventually he stole the tax issue from the Republicans. Heading into the election, 31% of voters thought that a President Obama would cut their taxes. Only 11% expected a tax cut from a McCain administration.

Are you listening, Republicans?  Or are you going through Sarah Palin's wardrobe, looking for things to return?

The last Democratic candidate to win the tax issue was also the last Democratic president -- Bill Clinton. In fact, the candidate who most credibly promises the lowest level of taxes has won every presidential election in at least the last 40 years.

I repeat the question:  Are you listening, Republicans?

A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Just 28% disagreed with this sentiment. That survey also found that 44% of Obama voters agreed with Reagan's assessment (40% did not). And McCain voters overwhelmingly supported the Gipper.

America lives, America lives.

The real challenge for the new president will be attempting to govern with a message that resonates with most voters but divides his own party. Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive." Except among Democrats, that is. Fifty-one percent of Democrats view that Reagan comparison as a negative. There's Mr. Obama's dilemma in a nutshell.

You mean, The One has problems?   But a saint can't have problems, can he?

Mr. Obama won the White House promising tax cuts, but he will be governing with a Democratic Congress bursting with desire for a more activist government. As he faces this challenge, he might remember the fate of another man who made taxes the central part of his campaign: the first President Bush, whose most memorable campaign line -- "Read my lips, no new taxes" -- was as central to his victory as Mr. Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. George H.W. Bush famously reneged on that promise. Voters rejected his bid for a second term.

Maybe the president-elect should sit down with Nancy, Harry and the gang, and they can all read Scott Rasmussen's column together, chanting certain parts where appropriate.  Then maybe they'd learn.  I doubt it.

November 10, 2008.      Permalink          

ALERT AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  From an Australian paper, presented with caution.  This cannot be confirmed, but I thought it wise to pass it on with that understanding: 

Osama bin Laden is planning an attack against the United States that will "outdo by far" September 11, an Arab newspaper in London has reported.

And according to a former senior Yemeni al-Qaeda operative, the terrorist organisation has entered a "positive phase", reinforcing specific training camps around the world that will lead the next "wave of action" against the West.

The warning, on the front page of an Arabic newspaper published in London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi - and widely reported in the major Italian papers - quotes a person described as being "very close to al-Qaeda" in Yemen.

We are, I'm afraid, not paying attention.

SHOCKING REVELATION AT 3:39 P.M. ET:   Investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which works under the auspices of the United Nations, have found traces of enriched uranium in Syria, a potential sign that the country had been attempting to develop a nuclear program, Reuters quoted diplomats familiar with the IAEA investigation as saying.

According to Monday's report, the uranium was discovered at the same site which was allegedly bombed by IAF jets in September 2007.

COMMENT:  Allegedly bombed?  Who's denying it?  And aren't you shocked by the accusation that Syria would have a secret program?  I think the whole thing was made up by Joe Lieberman.

SCARE STORY AT 3:28 P.M. ET:  Real Clear World, which is a division of Real Clear Politics, is handicapping the possible picks for secretary of state.  RCW ranks them, in ascending order of probability:

5.  Rand Beers
4.  Richard Lugar
3.  Richard Holbrooke
2.  Bill Richardson
1.  John Kerry

Kerry is their favorite, and RCW notes earlier speculation that Kerry endorsed Obama in exchange for the State slot. 

Frankly, picking Kerry would be a farce.  That's just what we need in a sensitive post - an embittered former presidential candidate who seeks vindication and revenge.  And just think of the overseas stories on Kerry, reminding readers that he once denounced his fellow soldiers in Vietnam.  That should immediately endear him to every Marxist teaching assistant at European colleges. 

Kerry has just been reelected to the Senate from Massachusetts.  A day after the vote he expressed public interest in an Obama job offer.  The contempt this shows for his constituents is breathtaking.  But they don't seem to care.  They press that Democratic lever the way a baby goes for a milk bottle, which is a reasonable comparison.

Kerry at State?  Me to the bomb shelter.

WHAT?  SHE SPEAKS?

Posted at 3:02 p.m. ET

There is shock and dismay in the media world today as it was learned that Sarah Palin actually speaks, and can do so without a script.   Reports say that Charlie Gibson has reevaluated his life and cleaned his glasses, and that Katie Couric has promised a demeanor as humble as her ratings.

But, 'tis true.  The Alaska governor has been speaking out, without her minders from the McCain staff.  And you know, the woman is coherent, intelligent and makes a lot of sense.  It won't convince anyone at Yale, but America may see a lot more of her, and may like what they see.  The Politico reports:

“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration?” Palin said.

Okay, maybe she should polish up the grammar, but she makes more sense than a lot of the Ph.D's who are teaching our kids.

Looking back on the race, the Alaska governor said that she was “frustrated” by misinformation spread about her, especially related to her family.

“Some of the goofy things, like who was Trig's mom. Well, I'm Trig's mom, and do you want to see my medical records to prove that? And banning books. That was a ridiculous thing also that could have so easily been corrected just by a reporter taking an extra step and not basing a report on gossip or speculation,” Palin said.

“Just looking into the record. It was reported that I tried to ban Harry Potter when it hadn't even been written when I was the mayor. So, gosh, we have so many examples, I mean every day, especially the first few weeks, every day something that was thrown out there.”

I'm glad to see she's finally fighting back.  She will probably do a book, and I'd imagine it will be a major seller.  Maybe the defeat was a blessing in disguise, although, as Churchill said after his 1945 loss, the disguise is very thick indeed.

Asked about running for the Republican nomination in 2012, the Alaska governor seemed cool to the prospect, pointing out that current polling showing favorable prospects in a potential GOP primary field are likely to shift.

“Look how fickle poll numbers are,” Palin said. “Look where I've gone, up and down, up and down, even in the state of Alaska the last couple of months. We can't pay attention to those numbers.”

Everything will depend on how well Obama does, and how Palin performs as governor and media star over the next four years.  She is not permitting herself to be punched into submission, and that is good.

November 10, 2008.       Permalink          

WE ARE CLEANSED

Posted at 5:45 a.m. ET

There is arrogance and there is extreme arrogance.  Ever since Mr. Obama's election we've had a flood of arrogant, self-righteous, preciously pompous statements coming from spokesmen all over the world, and from self-proclaimed intellectuals.  They inform us that they are pleased, that we have passed one of their "global" tests, that some of us, those who voted right, are welcome back to the bosom of civilization.  We are told that Mr. Obama has restored our soul, a soul that many of these presumptuous yakkers never found in the first place.

There has to be a prize for arrogance.  There are prizes for everything.  For first prize I humbly nominate Desmond Tutu, once a hero in the South African resistance movement, but in recent decades a man for whom democracy and dictatorship seemed roughly equal.  Bishop Tutu condescends to comment, and finds America on the mend.

CAPE TOWN I am rubbing my eyes in disbelief and wonder. It can't be true that Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan, is the next president of the United States.

Yeah.  True.  We're takin' it pretty much in stride.  Notice no riots in American streets.

...for those of us who have looked to America for inspiration as we struggled for democracy and human rights, these past seven years have been lean ones.

When have you ever struggled for human rights, except in your own country?  And have you noticed that Iraq is now a democracy, extremism is being battled in Afghanistan, Libya has given up its WMD programs, and Muslims come and go in America without harassment?  What's lean about that? 

A few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we had our first shock, hearing your president respond not with the statesmanlike demeanor we had come to expect from a U.S. head of state but like a Western gunslinger. Later, it seemed that much of American society was following his lead.

A few days after September 11th, Bishop Tutu, the BBC was on the air with vicious, anti-American programming.  President Bush was attending a mosque and assuring Muslims that this was not a war against them.  And precisely what "demeanor" did you expect, in the face of an attack that killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor?

When war began, first in Afghanistan and not long after in Iraq, we read allegations of prisoner abuse at Bagram air base in Afghanistan and of rendition to countries notorious for practicing torture. We saw the horrific images from Abu Ghraib and learned of gruesome acts performed in the name of gathering information. Sometimes the torture itself was couched in the government's euphemisms -- calling waterboarding an "interrogation technique."

When war began, Bishop?  How about, when war was forced on us?  And do you have anything to say about the regime of Saddam Hussein?  Any human-rights concern there?  You seem to criticize the United States and Israel, and that's about it.

The Bush administration has riled people everywhere. Its bully-boy attitude has sadly polarized our world.

Against all this, the election of Barack Obama has turned America's image on its head. My wife was crying with incredulity and joy as we watched a broadcast of the celebrations in Chicago. A newspaper here ran a picture of Obama from an earlier trip to one of our townships, where he was mobbed by youngsters. It was tacitly saying that we are proud he once visited us.

Precisely who has President Bush bullied?  Name that person or country.  And why do you assume that "human rights" will have a better outing under Mr. Obama? 

The fact that Obama's Kenyan grandfather was a convert to Islam may -- shamefully -- have been controversial in parts of the United States, but elsewhere in the world, Obama's multi-faith heritage is an inspiration.

This is particularly disgusting.  What "parts of the United States" are you referring to?  What is that a code phrase for?  Devout Christians?  Jews?  Southerners?  Do you have anything to say about the treatment of minorities in Muslim countries?  I guess not.

In the midst of this celebration, however, a word of caution is appropriate. In the first days after 9/11, the United States had the world's sympathy, an unprecedented wave of it. President Bush squandered it.

One of the great myths.  The "sympathy" for the United States lasted a few days, at most.  It didn't take much time for the international left, of which Tutu is a part, to start explaining the "root cause" of the attacks.  The universities revved up almost immediately.  The root cause, of course, was us.

Among other things on Tutu's laundry list for Obama, is this:

And it would be wonderful if, on behalf of the nation, he would apologize to the world, and especially the Iraqis, for an invasion that I believe has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

Apologize?  How would that go down with the millions of Iraqis who are now permitted to vote, for the first time in their lives?  Of course, who needs democracy when you have Desmond Tutu to guide you?

Obama's election has given Americans the message that hope is viable, that change is really possible.

My friend, we have always had hope and change here.  It's nothing new to us.  I have no idea what history books you like to read, but they're the wrong ones.

His (Obama's) triumph can help the world reach the point where we realize that we are all caught up in a delicate network of interdependence, unable to celebrate fully our own heritage and place in the world, unable to realize our full potential as human beings, unless everyone else, everywhere else, can do the same.

But when President Bush spoke in precisely these terms, you opposed him.  We have long memories.

Now you know why Desmond Tutu gets first prize for arrogance.

November 10, 2008.      Permalink          

TOUGH GOING

Posted at 5:40 a.m. ET

Urgent Agenda has some awfully good sources.  One of them is an American currently traveling in Asia, with first-hand knowledge of American and Asian affairs.  He has sent us a detailed letter, based on observations and discussions in Afghanistan.  It is quite a remarkable analysis, and we present a section of it here.  This is important, and grim:

Why am I so pessimistic?

NATO.  This system is not working.  I know you have read about it, but it is something altogether to observe at close range that lack of seriousness and commitment displayed by our NATO "brothers."  It goes beyond national caveats that will not allow certain countries to fully participate in necessary operations.  Some NATO countries come here merely to punch tickets, serving in very short rotations (4-6 months) mostly in safe regions and staying as much as possible in safe, fortress-like facilities. Their nations get credit for supporting NATO, but they are doing very little to advance the cause here...

Leadership.  The Afghans lack it, at least the sort of leadership that holds nations together and allows complex organizations to function.  The military is a good example.  The individual Afghan soldier is a formidable fighter, brave and committed.  Unfortunately, this is not enough.  To lead, organize, train and equip an army that is going to soon exceed 100,000 soldiers, you need people who have time horizons that exceed the next ten minutes.  I am exaggerating for effect, of course, but sometimes it does seem that way.    Afghans must attain the ability to run logistics systems, plan large-scale operations, oversee campaigns that will cover months and even years and train and empower the successors who will have to execute them...

American "can-do."  We all know the famous T.E. Lawrence quote that says it is better for the native to do it poorly than for the outsider to do it well.   We put this in our literature and we hang it on our walls, but we surely do not follow it.  We do EVERYTHING for them.  We will not allow them to fail.  It is not in our nature or our training to allow them to fail.  We constantly step in to bail them out, allowing Afghan muscles to atrophy by always stepping in to carry the load.  And this will certainly get worse as the same inadequate leaders are left in charge of a larger and larger Army...

Ethnic divisions.  I believe the ethnic divisions and historical grievances are much deeper than we would like to believe.  Afghans know they must sing the right songs about ethnic diversity to keep the billions flowing.   I have detected hints that these divisions will not be healed in the short time we are here.  They took thousands of years to develop and a decade of semi-peace will not paper them over.  I suspect that within a year of America's inevitable departure they will flare up violently, undoing much of the good we have tried to bring them...  

Drugs.  Though narcotics bring in only a pittance, it is their only pittance. And you can disregard any harsh words coming out of NATO, asserting a new willingness to attack the nexus between the drug market and the insurgency.  This has always been the policy, but the international community has always been too squeamish to execute it.  95% of the world's heroin supply comes from Afghanistan and it touches and corrupts every aspect of Afghan civil life.  No one here as the political will or incentive to do anything about it...

Pakistan.  The Pakistanis can do almost nothing about the sanctuaries from which attacks are more and more frequently being launched into Afghanistan.  They are about to be insolvent, rejecting IMF stipulations for further support.  The ISI (Pakistani intelligence) is allied with Pashtun warlords who benefit from uncertainty and unrest along the Afghan border...

So, some influential voices will be arguing that since Afghanistan will never be a nation...why should we continue to pour troops and soldiers into a losing proposition?  Instead, why not simply use special forces to decimate the leadership of the most dangerous of the terrorist organizations..?

The problem is that this shift could be labeled a NATO failure and preclude any future serious or threat of use of NATO power.  In the face of a rejuvenated and cantankerous Russia, could our president (no matter how naive) allow this?  Possibly not.  I think this will be the main reason that the Petraeus/McKiernan plan to introduce new units will be approved.

It is discouraging.  We're getting more and more reports like this every day.  Mr. Obama has a huge task in Afghanistan.  He doesn't seem to have much of a plan.

November 10, 2008.      Permalink          

SUNDAY,  NOVEMBER 9,  2008

SARAH

Posted at 7:23 p.m. ET

What will happen to Sarah Palin?  Well, she'll be governor of Alaska, and probably a very good governor.

But there's something else.   The talent agents are after her:

SARAH Palin won't be vice president, but she won the hearts of talent scouts and literary agents who are scrambling to sign her to multimillion-dollar contracts.

CAA, ICM, William Morris, Paradigm and other agencies "smell books, talk shows and commentary for Fox and CNN" as possibilities for the Alaska governor, West Coast PR man Hal Lifson told us.

"There are several of our imprints who are eager to talk to Governor Palin," Random House spokesman Stuart Applebaum said. "She clearly has a constituency and we know books by conservatively-centered politicos usually sell very, very well."

A book can be a launching platform for the rest of her political career.  It can also, finally, beat down the false idea that she's dumb.  She was clearly unprepared for some aspects of the campaign, but dumb she ain't.

As some of you know, I've been involved in Hollywood and publishing, and I will say that Gov. Palin must proceed carefully, and with an excellent, knowledgeable adviser.  The talent business can use you and eat you alive.  They're not interested in Sarah for Sarah's sake, but, rather, for their own.  You have to have two eyes open when dealing with agencies, and have the phone number of a good lawyer.

She's getting some sound advice already:

Public-relations powerhouse Howard Rubenstein added, "She's poised to make a ton of money." But he warned, "She ought to keep an eye on what her goals are for 2012. If she plays a game and looks foolish, if she sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about - like saying Africa is a country - she may talk herself out of a political job."

True.  I'm sure she knows Africa isn't a country, but a slip of the tongue is magnified when you're in the arena.

And there'll be plenty of knives out.  Consider:

Linda Mann, president of Mann Media, which books celebrities and fashionistas for TV, noted, "Her buzz is incredible. She has car-wreck appeal. You're compelled to watch, hoping she'll say the dumbest things possible. I'd propose a show combining her love of fashion and lack of brainpower - 'Project Dumbway.' "

Classy comment, ay?  Watch your back, Sarah.

I suspect Sarah Palin will do very well with a book, or a TV talk show.  As long as she keeps her dignity, and uses these platforms to advance serious ideas, she may show that she has real political potential.

But those eyes must stay open and aware.

November 9, 2008.        Permalink          

UPDATE AT 5:53 P.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:  HONG KONG, Nov. 9 -- China on Sunday announced a massive $586 billion stimulus package aimed at boosting domestic spending over the next two years in its most aggressive response so far to the spreading global financial crisis.

COMMENT:  Americans are making the same mistake about China that we made regarding Japan 25 years ago - assuming it's on an unstoppable upward trajectory.  In fact, as Gordon Chang recently pointed out in a Hudson Institute lecture, China is plagued with economic and social problems.  There's a real chance of a major collapse and social upheaval.  This is a story worth following. 

UPDATE AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  A very well informed source with a substantial knowledge of elections and recounts sends us the following note about the Minnesota Senate race, still undecided, pitting Senator Norm Coleman against unfunny comedian Al Franken:

...now it's clear that Norm Coleman faces big problems getting to the recount with more votes than Al Franken. By the end of next week, counties will have finished adjusting their final reported totals. It is at this point that big numbers of votes can shift. In the 2006 US Senate election, Democrat Amy Klobuchar lost 666 votes but GOP candidate Mark Kennedy lost 3,520 votes statewide as counties adjusted their totals in the two weeks after the election. If a similar pattern happens again this time, Coleman will enter the recount behind. Early this week the populous counties of the Twin Cities area report their adjusted totals, and that could change the leadership of the race. Stay tuned.

This could be problematical.  I do hope the people of Minnesota, home of Jesse Ventura, don't embarrass themselves again.

NO EARTHQUAKE

Posted at 10:37 a.m. ET

A funny thing happened on the way to pundits declaring Tuesday's election the greatest ever, the greatest thing in history, in the universe, the greatest expression of human feeling, the greatest...

It wasn't.

The Politico reports the sobering news that turnout on Tuesday wasn't dramatically different, as a percentage of eligible voters, than it was last time out:

Despite widespread predictions of record turnout in this year’s presidential election, roughly the same portion of eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 as in 2004.

Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.

One explanation:

In 2004, turnout was 6 percentage points higher than in 2000. But Gans said he believed it did not spike more this year because fewer Republicans went to the polls. While it may be premature to draw conclusions, Gans said, it appeared that Republican voting declined 1.3 points, to 28.7 percent of the electorate, while Democratic turnout rose from 28.7 percent to 31.3 percent of the electorate.

The Democratic increase struck some analysts as modest, considering the party’s immense get-out-the-vote operation, strong anti-Bush sentiment and Obama's popularity.

It may have been modest, but it was enough to help create a landslide victory for Obama.  I am not amused.

But Obama's historic candidacy probably was responsible for bringing more youths to the polls this year, and it also helped explain what Gans said was the apparently significant rise in African-American turnout. Exit polls found that blacks constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2 percentage-point gain over 2004, Gans said; the increase may be even more than that, he said.

Finally...

Interestingly, Gans found that state efforts to make voting more convenient — for instance, through programs for early or mail-in voting — did not significantly boost turnout. Of the 14 states with the largest turnout increases, only six had so-called convenience voting initiatives, while in the 13 states with the greatest decline in voting, 12 had some form of convenience voting.

So it wasn't this grand voting show we'd been told about.  Still, our side must do much better next time, and planning must begin right now.

November 9, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  From NewsBusters:  Just catch this absurd CBS headline and subhead: How Obama Can Win Over The Media - MarketWatch Media Columnist Explains What Obama Must Do To Become America's "Communicator-In-Chief"... I know, I know. When you've stopped laughing, you can continue on.

COMMENT:  Anyone who thinks Obama has to "win over" the media should be drummed out journalism.  Unfortunately, that person would probably wind up teaching in a college.

UPDATE AT 9:14 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:  President-elect Barack Obama's 34-point margin of victory with voters under 30 was the largest in a generation, cut across lines of class, color and education — and the most impressive youth mandate in modern American history, according to an exclusive Politico analysis.

COMMENT:  Oh, how breathless!  There's an old saying that America has the world's worst 18-year-olds and the world's best 30-year-olds.  There's some truth to that, but it doesn't change the fact that the GOP has work to do to dent that youth vote.  Of course, if we raised the voting age to 35...  No, no.  I'm not serious.

REAL WORLD ALERT

Posted at 8:43 a.m. ET

Britain's Telegraph has gotten hold of a document outlining the seriousness of the terror threat against the U.K.  (I am speculating here, but I wonder if this extraordinary leak wasn't directed at president-elect Obama, reminding him of what conditions are like in the real world.)

Secret enclaves of al-Qaeda extremists based in London, Birmingham and Luton are planning mass-casualty attacks in Britain, according to a leaked Government intelligence report.

The document, which was drawn up by the intelligence branch of the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and Special Branch, states that "some thousands" of extremists are active in the UK. They are predominantly UK-born and aged between 18 and 30, and many are believed to have been trained in overseas terrorist camps.

Virtually all assessments we've seen at Urgent Agenda say that Britain and Europe are far easier targets for terror attacks than the U.S. because travel here for potential terrorists has been made far more difficult than it was before 9/11.

The Telegraph quotes the report:

"For the foreseeable future the UK will continue to be a high-priority target for international terrorists aligned with al-Qaeda. It will face a threat from British nationals, including Muslim converts, and UK-based foreign terrorists, as well as terrorists planning attacks from abroad."

A recent statement by a major American intelligence official noted that a very high number of terror attacks, going back decades, are made in the months following a presidential election or in the first year of a new presidency.  An attack, of course, could well be made on a British or other foreign target both as a greeting to a new president and a possible way of splitting an ally from the United States. 

Since 2001, over 1,200 terrorist suspect have been arrested, over 140 have been charged and more than 45 have been convicted of terrorism offences, according to Home Office figures. It is also estimated that there are some 200 terrorist networks functioning in Britain today who are involved in at least 30 plots.

But this latest security assessment appears to suggest that the number of individuals who now pose a threat to the UK is even higher.

And...

The report continues: "The majority of extremists are British nationals of south Asian, mainly Pakistani origin but there are also extremists from north and east Africa, Iraq and the Middle East, and a number of converts. The overwhelming majority of extremists are male, typically in the 18-30 age range.

The converts are particularly worrisome because they could be native-born British citizens, indistinguishable from other Britons. 

It adds: "The availability of training/guidance and the necessary components to build improvised explosive devices (IED), allied with extremists' known targeting preferences, mean that IED attacks against crowded places, intended to cause mass casualties, are the most likely form of attack in the UK."

And please note this:

It is also made clear in the report that al-Qaeda cells are planning further attacks in UK with the so-called Government Security Zone (GSZ), an area which covers the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall, Buckingham and St James' Palaces, as a possible target. The threat level in the GSZ is described in the report as "severe".

Security officials are convinced that UK-based al-Qaeda cells will attempt to carry out another "spectacular" inside the UK with major transport termini, such as airports and train stations, being the most likely targets.

Welcome to reality, Mr. Obama.  We hope you'll take this British paper into account when naming your foreign-policy and national-security teams, and that we won't see the likes of John Kerry or Chuck Hagel on either one of them.  This is a time for vigilance, not fashionable theory. 

I'd like to just note that, despite the heavy presence of politically correct adolescents in both Britain and Europe, other elements in these areas take terrorism more seriously than we do.  No country is more sensitive about internal security than is France, and the U.K. has superb operatives protecting its homeland.  We have great people too, but we must wonder about the commitment of the incoming, liberal administration.  Ease our concerns, Mr. Obama.

November 9, 2008.        Permalink