Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SATURDAY,  AUGUST 7,  2010

TACKY IS AS TACKY DOES – AT 10:57 P.M. ET:  The Obaman crusade sold us a lemon two years ago.  Part of the sales pitch was that Barack and Michelle would bring class back to the White House, replacing that little hick, George W. Bush, and that insufferable librarian wife with the funny Texas accent.  Where did that woman go to school?  Probably the same place Sarah Palin went.  Oh, why do we let them dine with us?

My, my, what two years can do.  Now we see Michelle on a vulgar romp through the upper crustiness of Spain, and ordering a custom-made coat from her newest London designer.

And the president?  A New York Post editorial says it well: 

How's this for hubris: President Obama extolling his "new strategy" in Iraq -- even though it never would have succeeded had his original vision prevailed?

The president struck a triumphal tone this week about the Iraq mission coming to an end -- but shunned the word "success." He spoke of "ending" the war, but took pains to avoid context.

Sen. John McCain rightly called the address "small-minded" and "bizarre."

Indeed, Obama couldn't bring himself to give a shred of credit to the man who most deserves it: George W. Bush.

Bush's surge -- and Gen. David Petraeus' on-the-ground leadership -- created the conditions for Iraqis to take full control of their country, allowing Obama last year to introduce his "new strategy."

And...

Obama's lack of graciousness even barred him from noting that his speech occurred 20 years to the day after the invasion of Kuwait. He couldn't offer even a small nod to the first President George Bush, who led the liberation of Kuwait.

Finally...

He scorned the strategy that produced the outcome he's now celebrating with a straight face. And he won't say one kind word about his predecessor, no matter how warranted.

If any president has shown less class than Obama, it's hard to say who.

COMMENT:   Correct.  President George W. Bush,  often ridiculed and laughed at by self-appointed "sophisticates," shows more class in the way he conducts himself than Barack Obama and all those around him ever could. 

Barack Obama has a silver tongue.  We wish some of the silver dust had been spread around to whatever section of the brain handles decency.

August 7, 2010      Permalink

SAME OLD STORY – AT 1:30 P.M. ET:  The opportunities for Republicans this year are enormous.  Is the party ready for the fight?  Are you kidding?  From The Politico:

With $11 million on hand at the end of June — and about $2 million in reported debt — the RNC’s paid get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort will be limited to just targeted House races, POLITICO has learned.

And the committee is only going to be able to spend money on those relatively inexpensive House races, thanks to a $10 million line of credit that was approved at the meeting here. Until then, said one incredulous Republican, there was no money available for paid GOTV activities like mailers and automated phone calls.

Even with the line of credit, though, the party can’t afford to assist their many gubernatorial and Senate candidates with any dollars for paid voter contact and will have to effectively outsource that operation.

The expectation — and it’s only that because the party is barred from coordinating with third-party groups — is that the new organizations that have sprung up amid the RNC’s woes will step in to pay for such GOTV efforts in statewide contests.

COMMENT:  Republicans have traditionally worked hard to lose elections, and with a very good record of success.  Apparently, some in the party want to continue the hallowed tradition. 

One reason for the shortage of cash is the image of the RNC as run by incompetents.  We do hope that funding elsewhere will do the job, but the lack of major financing from the national organization has got to do damage, create confusion, and disrupt the chain of command.  It's also not a great advertisement for the Republicans' ability to govern.

Same old story.  But, as Sinatra might have put it, leave us we should pray that revulsion over Democratic rule is so great that even the Republicans won't be able to mess up their victory.

August 7, 2010      Permalink

AM I READING THIS RIGHT?  ARE WE BEING RUN BY LUNATICS? – AT 11:48 A.M. ET:  The AP is reporting that Washington is making a nuclear agreement with Vietnam that does not  contain a standard safeguard.  This will make us look foolish:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told US lawmakers that a nuclear cooperation deal with Vietnam is unlikely to include a promise by the Hanoi government not to enrich uranium, congressional aides said.

The United States had sought a no-enrichment pledge, which the State Department promotes as the "gold standard" for civilian nuclear cooperation accords.

It would have been modeled on a deal last year in which the United Arab Emirates pledged, in return for US nuclear equipment and reactors, not to enrich uranium or extract plutonium from used reactor fuel — procedures that would provide material that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

COMMENT:  What is going on here?  What really is going on?  Here we are, at a critical stage with Iran over enrichment, and we're prepared to drop a no-enrichment provision in a nuclear deal with...Hanoi?

It seems inconceivable.  We'll be ridiculed immediately.  The Iranians, and the North Koreans, will throw it in our faces.  I'd imagine that even our allies will be dismayed.

What is so important about a nuclear deal with Vietnam that would prompt us to drop that "gold standard"?  Do we trust the Vietnamese that much?  Or is this some stunt by Obama's left fringe to provide a kind of reparation for the Vietnam War?  Hmm.  Why do I suspect that I've just hit a nerve?

I believe that these nuclear accords must be ratified by the Senate.  We'll watch this.  We should oppose ratification if the no-enrichment pledge is missing.  And members of Congress should start inquriing right now, this minute, as to why we would make such a strange deal with a Communist country.

August 7, 2010       Permalink

WILL THERE ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND? – AT 11:24 A.M. ET:  Well, Michelle may be getting a brand new, really keen coat from England, but we may not be getting much more military support from that ally if things continue the way they're going.  This is really a wrenching story:

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

COMMENT:  That is grim.  Imagine, an RAF cut down to World War I size.  There are some elderly men still alive who fought in the Battle of Britain in 1940 who are undoubtedly shaking their heads in utter dismay.

I met Liam Fox, Britain's new defense minister, in New York last year, before the British election and before he assumed his new post.  He's a terrific guy, a medical doctor by training, and he didn't sound like a man who intended to preside over fading glory.  Rather, he wants to strengthen defense.

But Fox is faced with an impossible budget situation.  Conservatives are blaming previous Labour governments, claiming they spent Britain into a deep hole, and that defense must now suffer as a result.

However, there may be a bright side.  It's being reported that these proposed cuts are part of a game of psychological warfare.  Those leaking the information know that the British public will be angered that their defense will be reduced so far, and public reaction is being counted on to reverse some of the reductions.  I hope that's so.  Britain is always a question mark.  On the one hand, the Brits are a gallant people.  On the other, they've gotten very used to nanny taking care of things.  And the rising Muslim influence in Britain, which is truly frightening, is not helping matters.

If the American president were more defense oriented, he might be able to put some pressure on the Brits to tough it out on defense.  But look who we've got.  The closest relationship the Obamans have with England may be a fashion designer.  (See story below.) 

We need some change we can believe in.

August 7, 2010      Permalink 

INSULT TO INJURY – AT 10:45 A.M. ET:  Her Michelleness is in Spain, her luxurious, multi-hundred-thousand-dollar trip becoming increasingly controversial.  But now there's even more.  From London's Evening Standard:

A young London fashion designer has been commissioned by US First Lady Michelle Obama.

Bunmi Olaye, 27, who runs Bunmi Koko with her partner Francis Udom, was given the honour after sending a prospectus of her designs to the White House.

Soon after a call came to the couple from Washington asking if a coat could be made for Mrs Obama.

Mr Udom said: “Someone said they were from the First Lady's office and she was interested in a cream coat we had featured and could we make it for her.

“We were stunned but kept calm and said we would make her a coat in September. I hope she likes it.”

Ms Olaye, whose company is based in Plaistow, first gained national exposure when former Spice Girl Melanie Brown asked her to make her a dress for this year's Brit Awards. Pictures of the singer wearing the dress alongside former bandmate Geri Halliwell featured in newspapers the following day.

COMMENT:  Huh?  Is the first lady of the United States serious?  We have a fashion industry in the United States that's hurting.  And she commissions a coat from England?  Why can't she just buy one off the rack in America?  Boost our own industry?

What has gone wrong?  First, the Obamas take a raft of vacations, one right after the other.  Then the first lady takes 40 intimate friends on a lavish trip to Spain.  Oh, she's also dropping in on the king of Spain, so the White House is trying to spin this as a semi-official trip.  Yeah, right.  Michelle and the king will solve the problems of the world.

And then Michelle orders this DARLING coat from this exciting, oh how exciting, young designer in London.  I can't wait to see her in it.

All this right before an election.

Something is off kilter here.  It sounds like the Obamas just don't care about public perception any longer.  Or maybe it's Michelle who doesn't care.  Or maybe, just maybe, the president won't run again and has nothing to lose.  Whatever it is, this is bad behavior, and Americans, especially those out of work or hurting, do notice.  I'd love to see the poll numbers.

August 7, 2010     Permalink

FRIDAY,  AUGUST 6,   2010

A GOOD IDEA, FOR A CHANGE, FROM ACADEMIA – AT 9:04 P.M. ET:  The new president of the University of Virginia appears serious about campus security, and is starting with a common-sense idea:

Students returning to the University of Virginia this month will be required to report whether they have been arrested or convicted, a new layer of security announced Friday in response to the May slaying of student Yeardley Love.

University President Teresa A. Sullivan discussed the new rule at a news conference marking the end of her first week on the job. University leaders hope screening students for criminal encounters will flag those who might commit violent acts.

Students return to Charlottesville the weekend of Aug. 21. When they log onto the campus computer system for the first time, each will be prompted to report any arrest, other than minor traffic infractions, since enrolling.

Love, 22, of suburban Baltimore was found dead in her off-campus apartment May 3. George Huguely of Chevy Chase, her 22-year-old ex-boyfriend and a fellow lacrosse player, is charged in the killing.

Huguely had a prior arrest, for a drunken encounter with a Lexington, Va., police officer, in fall of his junior year. University officials said had they known, Huguely probably would have been suspended or expelled.

There has been a policy in place at UVA requiring students to report arrests, but the requirement, if you can believe this, was voluntary.  And the policy was never enforced.  Now students will have to reply to a direct question when they come to school.

We await the scholarly reaction of the ACLU.

August 5, 2010      Permalink

GETTING TO KNOW YOU – AT 8:39 P.M. ET:  We all want to meet new people, someone to hang with at the mall, or just chat with when the kids act up.  So, hey, meet Adnan Shukrijumah, the new chief of operations for Al Qaeda.  Knows us well.  Lived here 15 years.  Speaks English with an American accent.  Who wouldn't want to know him?  Fox gives us his Facebook details:

MIAMI -- A suspected Al Qaeda operative who lived for more than 15 years in the U.S. has become chief of the terror network's global operations, the FBI says, marking the first time a leader so intimately familiar with American society has been placed in charge of planning attacks.

Adnan Shukrijumah, 35, has taken over a position once held by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003, Miami-based FBI counterterrorism agent Brian LeBlanc told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview. That puts him in regular contact with Al Qaeda's senior leadership, including Osama bin Laden, LeBlanc said.

Shukrijumah and two other leaders were part of an "external operations council" that designed and approved terrorism plots and recruits, but his two counterparts were killed in U.S. drone attacks, leaving Shukrijumah as the de facto chief and successor to Mohammed -- his former boss.

Well, I guess it's a way to get promoted.  I hear those other two guys weren't much fun, anyway.

Shukrijumah was named earlier this year in a federal indictment as a conspirator in the case against three men accused of plotting suicide bomb attacks on New York's subway system in 2009. The indictment marked the first criminal charges against Shukrijumah, who previously had been sought only as a witness.

And...

It's natural he would focus on attacking on the U.S, LeBlanc said.

"He knows how the system works. He knows how to get a driver's license. He knows how to get a passport," LeBlanc said.

Shukrijumah's mother, Zurah Adbu Ahmed, said Thursday on the front stoop of her small home in suburban Miramar, Fla., that her son frequently talked about what he considered the excesses of American society -- such as alcohol and drug abuse and women wearing skimpy clothes -- but that he did not condone violence. She also said she has not had contact with her son for several years.

Family values.

"What's dangerous about an individual that understands the U.S. is he may have a better sense of our security vulnerabilities and insights into how to terrify the American people using smaller attacks for large, political impact," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism research fellow at the New America Foundation. "This increases the risk of attacks outside traditional places we normally worry about like New York and Washington."

Shukrijumah was born in Saudi Arabia. He is a citizen of Guyana, a small South American country where his father was born.

COMMENT:  Eternal vigilance, readers.  Eternal vigilance.

August 5, 2010      Permalink

SUMMER OF RECOVERY? – AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  Well, that's what Joe Biden promised us.  Joe, admit it ain't so.  From The New York Times, this morning:

With the American economic recovery hanging in the balance, private employers added 71,000 jobs in July, up from a downwardly revised 31,000 in June but below the consensus forecast of 90,000. The unemployment rate stayed steady at 9.5 percent.

Over all, the nation lost 131,000 jobs last month, but those losses came as 143,000 Census Bureau workers left their temporary posts, the Labor Department said. June’s number was revised dramatically downward to a total loss of 221,000 jobs. The agency originally reported that the nation lost 125,000 jobs in June.

Figures released last week confirmed that the United States economy slowed in the spring, and the Department of Labor’s monthly statistical snapshot of hiring pointed toward a stall in hiring this summer, as employers failed to add jobs at the rate they were earlier this year.

With some economists predicting a “double dip” back into recession and the political stakes for the Obama administration rising as the weeks tick closer to the midterm elections, Friday’s unemployment report renewed pressure on lawmakers to consider the next steps they might take to bolster the economy. Recent indicators focusing on consumer confidence, retail sales and housing appear to put the economy in a holding pattern.

COMMENT:  By election day, in three months, Obama will have been president for almost two years.  According to press reports, the strategy is to blame BUSH (!!) for everything that's happened.  I just don't think Americans will buy that, this far into Obama's reign. 

August 6,  2010       Permalink

CHURCHILL?  NOT EXACTLY – AT 9:01 A.M. ET:  Distracted by our own affairs, Americans have given little attention to the change in government in Britain.  Conservative David Cameron is now in charge.  We rooted for him, and may live to regret it.  Cameron is a klutz, as the Financial Times notes:

You might have thought that David Cameron would be steering clear of foreign policy gaffes after his “news-rich” visit to Turkey and India.

But he has just been accused by Labour of making a new blunder by mistakenly claiming that Iran has a nuclear weapon (at least, we are still assuming he’s wrong) during a PM Direct meeting.

The prime minister was asked why he was backing Turkey to join the EU and said it could help solve the world’s problems….”like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a nuclear weapon”.

Chris Bryant, shadow Europe minister, said Mr Cameron was becoming a “foreign policy klutz."

And...

Mr Cameron prompted controversy when he said (while in Turkey) that Gaza was a “prison camp” and said (in India) that Pakistan was exporting terror.

You may also recall that during the televised election debates he suggested that China posed a nuclear threat to the UK.

And let’s not forget his deputy Nick Clegg claiming that the Iraq war was “illegal”, which - whether you agree with him or not - is not the official government position, unsurprisingly.

COMMENT:  Cameron's first days in office have been disappointing.  We thought that a conservative prime minister would bring back the old spirit of Britain.  Instead, we've got a child in need of some serious tutoring.  We may soon be calling him England's Obama.

August 6, 2010     Permalink

TO MOSQUE OR NOT TO MOSQUE – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  The controversy of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is not going away.  Indeed, I think it will grow.  The majority of New Yorkers, most of them liberals, are outraged.  Now, U.S. senators are weighing in, as the Weekly Standard reports:

At the Capitol on Thursday, three United States senators weighed in on the decision to build an Islamic cultural center mere blocks from the site of worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. When questioned about the proposal by THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Senators Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), Olympia Snowe (R., Maine), and John McCain (R., Ariz.) all called the Ground Zero mosque “insensitive.”

In an interview in his Washington office, Isakson explained his reasoning. “The attackers were members of al Qaeda, sponsored by Osama bin Laden, which is an element of radical Islam,” Isakson told me. “I have a serious concern that it serves any good purpose. And in fact it could be totally insensitive to the tragedy that took place there.”...

...Snowe’s concern with the proposed project lies with the families of those who were murdered by the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center. “I think there should be particular sensitivities to the families,” Snowe told me as she was getting on an elevator after the Senate voted to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. “It is insensitive to the families.”

Senator McCain:

“I understand that I am a senator from Arizona, and I’m a long way from New York City. But I am entitled to my opinion. And obviously my opinion is that I’m opposed to it. I think that it’s something that would harm relations, rather than help.”

COMMENT:  The senators are right.  The idea of the mosque is already harming relations, despite the buffoonery of Mayor Bloomberg, who thinks it's just a swell idea.  I guess billionaires really are different.

I think the mosque will quietly go away.  The sponsors have to raise $100-million...and they have to get construction workers who'll be willing to work on it. 

The contrast between elite opinion and citizen opinion on the subject is striking, though.  The elitists scream "First Amendment."  The citizens scream "human beings."  The citiizens have the better argument.

August 6, 2010     Permalink

AUGUST 6TH – AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  Today is the 65th anniversary of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.  On the political left, it is another day to bash America.

The use of the bomb against Hiroshima, a key military, supply, railroad and communications center, and the use of a second bomb on Nagasaki three days later, ended the war.  For the people of Asia, that war had begun in 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, not on December 7, 1941, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Asians had been victimized by Japanese aggression for 14 years.  The use of the bombs, while ghastly, without doubt saved millions of lives that would have been lost had we had to invade Japan. 

There has been some concern in recent days that President Obama would use today to apologize to the Japanese for the nuclear bombings.  He did not.  There was the usual ceremony in Hiroshima, with the usual pieties.  The United States ambassador to Japan, however, did attend.  Some saw this as significant:

Washington's decision to send ambassador John Roos to the 65th anniversary of the bombing was seen by many as potentially paving the way for President Barack Obama to visit Hiroshima - which would be unprecedented for a sitting US leader.

We have no problem with the president visiting Hiroshima.  We might have a big problem with what he says.  But it hasn't happened yet.  And the U.S. ambassador made only boilerplate remarks about the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, an old chestnut. 

For years revisionist historians have argued that using the atomic bombs was unnecessary, that Japan was ready to surrender.  It's an odd argument.  Countries that wish to surrender can utter two words:  "We surrender."  These words were not forthcoming.  Indeed, there was a peace faction in the Japanese government at the time, but it wasn't running things.  The military was, and it surrendered only on the emperor's orders.

No one wishes to be joyous about the bombings.  But, as historian Paul Fussell, a Marine lieutentant in the Pacific at the time, wrote later, summing up our soldiers' reaction to the events:  "We were going to live."

You know, that's pretty important.  For those "historians" who question the use of the bombs, we would simply ask whether they were American soldiers in the Pacific in August of 1945.  The answer is no.  It's not surprising that guys who were there have a very different perspective.

August 6, 2010     Permalink