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.

TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 16,  2010

OH, DEAR, MUST WE ENDURE THIS? – AT 6:58 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post made some fine appointments to its op-ed page recently, but one that definitely is not fine is Katrina vanden Heuvel.

Vanden Heuvel, in my view a certifiable nutbag, is editor of The Nation, a magazine wrongly described by some as "liberal."  The Nation is not liberal.  The New Republic is liberal.  The Nation is far left, and often floats among the debris of the far-left fringe.  Vanden Heuvel is a very rich lady – she comes from the family that founded Universal Studios – who is often seen in leather pants.  Genuine leather, I'm sure. Her editorship of The Nation got so bad that, in the months after 9-11, apparently to prove that she was at one with the pro-jihadists, The Nation started running Holocaust denial ads, until her own staff stopped her.

Now WaPo has her on its op-ed page.  Today she honors her world of insanity by viciously attacking retiring Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, from all accounts a decent guy, for not being partisan enough.  Yes, that's just what America is demanding, through Katrina's brain – more partisanship:

So Evan Bayh, the Senate's poster boy for bipartisanship, is, in the immortal words of the Jackson 5, "goin' back to Indiana." The senator explains, "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress [in Congress] -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." Bayh is correct -- there isn't enough practical problem-solving in Congress. But his brand of bipartisanship should not be mourned. In fact, the country would be better off with a lot less bipartisanship, in any form, right now.

What wisdom.  Of course, quoting the Jackson 5 demonstrates that Katrina once listened to a black group.  A required credential.

Bayh's idea of bipartisanship, it would seem, was to call oneself a Democrat in the caucus while promoting center-right policies in the chamber. He worked to turn the Democratic Party into a kinder, gentler version of the GOP. And although the conventional wisdom is that his departure is bad news for Democrats, the caucus arguably would be stronger with 54 or 55 senators who would get real about governing and work to reform the anti-democratic filibuster than with a supermajority dependent on "conservadems" such as Bayh.

Earth to Katrina:  It takes two thirds to abolish the filibuster.  That's 66 senators.  So 54 or 55 couldn't do it.  That's math.  Okay, it's my mathematical point of view.  On the far left that's only an opinion, an alternative narrative forced on us by the oppressor class. 

Earth again to Katrina:  Bayh was elected from Indiana, a conservative state.  You ought to be thankful that any Democrat could be elected from Indiana.  You would have run an ultra-liberal in the Indiana election, lost by 25 points, and been proud of yourself. 

Achieving progress through "practical problem-solving" shouldn't mean legislating as the wolf in sheep's clothing. And milquetoast conviction isn't what most of us want out of our senators. After all, even a fifth grader, charged up with public-school patriotism after reading Johnny Tremain, could tell you that compromised convictions in the name of "bipartisanship" are not what Esther Forbes had in mind when she closed her historical children's novel with, "A man can stand up."

Oh, dear.  A man can sure stand up.  But it helps to have the country with you.  Vanden Heuvel really believes that her far-left crypto-socialism is what the people yearn for.  If only the peasants out there understood!

Oh Katrina, go back to the big co-op on Manhattan's West Side.  Have a party.  Serve healthy foods and bemoan what you undoubtedly consider Obama's conservatism.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

POLL GRIMNESS FOR OBAMA – AT 6:29 P.M. ET:  A new CNN poll will not be served at dessert tonight at the White House.  Real Clear Politics reports: 

An eye-opening result from the new CNN/Opinion Research survey:

6. Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be reelected, or not?

All Americans
Yes: 44%
No: 52%

Registered Voters
Yes: 44%
No: 52%

President Obama's job rating is slightly better, though still in negative territory. Forty-nine percent approve of the job he's doing while 50% disapprove.

And then there's Congress:

...the GOP leads the Democrats by 2 points in the generic congressional ballot, 48 to 46.

COMMENT:  Obviously, the 2010 midterm elections are many months away.  But what is striking is the relentlessness of the president's decline, as well as the decline of his Congressional party. 

And there does not appear to be anything on the horizon to reverse the trend. 

But if Republicans are smart, and there are doubts about some of them, they'll run as if they're 20 points behind, and will critique their campaign every day.  Nothing is in the bag. 

February 16, 2010   Permalink

ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL – AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Trouble with another Obama appointee, apparently another radical.  Do you see a pattern here?  From Fox:

President Obama's new envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, is at the center of a controversy over remarks attributed to him defending a man who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid a terrorist group.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quoted Hussain in 2004 as calling Sami al-Arian the victim of "politically motivated persecutions" after al-Arian, a university professor, was charged in 2003 with heading U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The United States has designated the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a foreign terrorist group as far back as 1997. At the time of al-Arian's arrest, then Attorney General John Ashcroft called it "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world."

Al-Arian pleaded guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Ah, but wait, the whitewash crew goes into action:

The White House says the controversial remarks defending al-Arian two years earlier were made by al-Arian's daughter -- not by Hussain. Both were part of a panel discussion at a Muslim Students Association conference, but the reporter covering the event told Fox News she stands by the quotes she attributed to Hussain, who was a Yale Law student and an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

It would be pretty hard to confuse the guy with al-Arian's daughter.

The White House also attributes the quotes to Laila al-Arian.

A White House official who talked with Hussain on Tuesday said he acknowledged attending the event to discuss civil rights in a post-9/11 world but has "no recollection" when it comes to the comments attributed to him.

"No recollection."  Where have we heard that before?

Another screwball appointed to a high post in the Obama administration, envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference.  He'll be among friends.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

IMPLICATIONS OF BAYH – AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  As a matter of principle, we refuse to use such constructions as "Bye Bayh" at Urgent Agenda.  We have pride.  We have standards. 

But the story itself, Evan Bayh's decision not to seek reelection to the Senate from Indiana, has major implications.  The Washington Post's "The Fix" reports:

The national implications of Bayh's retirement are considerable. Political handicapper Charlie Cook now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in his most competitive categories, meaning that if Republicans run the table and don't lose any of their own vulnerable seats they could take back the Senate. With so little room for error, however, it's still a long shot for Republicans to take over the upper chamber. To expand their chances, the GOP must continue to expand the playing field, with Senate races in Wisconsin and Washington State the most likely possibilities.

COMMENT:  The key is good candidates, always good candidates.  And not all of the GOP bench is glowing.  There are some great ones, and some real clunkers, like John Hostettler, the extremist former congressman, thrown out of office by his own conservative voters in Indiana, and now vying for the Senate nomination, in an apparent bid to fail upward.  So this will be hard work.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  We're alerted to this by reader Ken Braithwaite:

Nigerian Nobel laureate in literature, and democracy advocate, Wole Soyinka, has a few choice words about Britain.  I love Britain, and things British, but I share the dismay of many others at what's happening to the United Kingdom.  From the Daily Beast:

"England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it. Remember, that country was the breeding ground for communism, too. Karl Marx did all his work in libraries there."

Why is Britain the way it is? "This is part of the character of Great Britain," Mr. Soyinka declares. "Colonialism bred an innate arrogance, but when you undertake that sort of imperial adventure, that arrogance gives way to a feeling of accommodativeness. You take pride in your openness." And so it is, he says, that Britain lets everyone preach whatever they want: It confirms a self-image of greatness.

Not everything Soyinka says is wise.  For example, he thinks well of the Nation of Islam in the United States, which is run by Louis Farrakhan.  But his analysis of Britain rings true.  The Brits almost always come through in the end, however the nation has been dragged down by elements that take up or tolerate the worst ideologies.  Let us not forget that fascism took root in parts of British society in the 1930s.  And the BBC is hopelessly left-wing.

And yet, there is Churchill, the RAF, the debates in Commons, Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair, and other good stuff.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

FINANCIAL CRISIS II – AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  We Americans, concentrating on the home court, and on the Olympics, haven't been focused on the financial crisis sweeping Europe.  But it can have an enormous impact here. 

The first result, however, has been positive for the U.S., as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A dramatic turn in sentiment in favor of the dollar and against the euro continued Monday, with lingering fears of a possible European debt crisis pushing the greenback to its highest point in nine months.

Among investors, the question a few months ago wasn't whether the U.S. dollar would decline in value, but rather how far and how fast.

The currency's surge is throwing a monkey wrench into the plans of corporations and investors who were betting on a weak dollar..

...Sentiment has flipped on the world's two major currencies. Greece's woes amid a soaring deficit have exposed the fragility of the 16-nation euro zone's government finances and the Continent's recovery, overshadowing any nervousness about the American economy and the massive U.S. budget deficit.

The European Central Bank is now seen as having to delay interest-rate increases in order to prop up growth, while the Federal Reserve appears on track to begin tightening credit sooner rather than later. Higher rates tend to draw investment into a currency, all things being equal, thus boosting the dollar's prospects over the euro's.

COMMENT:  The Greek economy is in desperate trouble, and it's affecting all of Europe.  The world is nowhere near out of the economic woods.  Some economists are predicting a double-dip recession in the United States.  Housing prices in Britain may well collapse again in the face of new pressures.

The White House has no credible answers.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

THUNDER IN MASSACHUSETTS – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  We've been following the truly bizarre case of the Harvard-educated Alabama professor who shot three colleagues dead on Friday, apparently after being denied tenure. 

We don't normally "do murder" here, but the implications of this case stretch far beyond Alabama.  As previously reported, the professor, Amy Bishop, shot her brother to death in 1986 in liberal Braintree, Massachusetts, a shooting officially ruled an "accident," even though she pulled the trigger of a shotgun three times. 

Bishop was later a suspect in the attempted pipe bombing of a Harvard professor with whom she was having a dispute.  Cleared again, with no one ultimately charged.

To demonstrate the implications, the case may now claim the career of a Massachusetts Democratic congressman, who was district attorney at the time of the "brother shooting."  The Boston Globe reports:

US Representative William Delahunt said yesterday that he is considering retiring from his congressional seat representing the South Shore and Cape Cod, although he portrayed his deliberations as routine and said they are not related to challenges from Republicans who are energized by Scott Brown’s upset victory in last month’s special Senate election.

But being linked to the 1986 shooting, which he failed to prosecute, could push a fella over the edge.

Delahunt, one of the most left-leaning members of Congress, who has an uncomfortably close relationship with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, has been repeatedly accused of being soft on crime.  The 1986 case of Amy Bishop's fatal shooting of her brother will now almost certainly be reopened in light of Bishop's alleged murder of three on Friday.  Hard to see how Delahunt can come out well.

Retirement, on a Congressional pension, has its benefits.  The belief of political observers in Massachusetts is that Republicans have at least a decent shot at picking up his generally liberal district, but it may take a Scott Brown-quality candidate to seal the deal.

February 16, 2010   Permalink

CLINTON CLARITY, WHITE HOUSE MUSH – AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  We find ourselves in the heretical position of praising Hillary Clinton.

The fact is, her statements on Iran during her current Mideast trip have been tough, pointed, unyielding, and just right.  Whether they will lead to anything concrete is another story.  But one wishes she'd get some greater public backing from the pot of mashed potatoes known as the White House.  Alas, we wait for Mr. Obama to be firm on something.

Ms. Clinton has accused Iran of marching toward a military dictatorship.  Iran, apparently wounded by the unloving comment, has responded sharply, as The New York Times reports:

Locked in a sharpening confrontation with the United States, Iran on Tuesday rejected an assertion by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that it was becoming a military dictatorship, saying America itself answered to that description.

The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, “raised questions about the United States military dictatorship in the region,” the English-language Press TV broadcaster said, accusing Washington of practicing “modern deceit” and using “fake words” to disguise its intentions in the Persian Gulf area.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton said Washington fears that Iran is drifting toward a military dictatorship with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps assuming ever greater political, military and economic power.

But, in Tehran on Tuesday, Mr. Mottaki said: “We are regretful that the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tries to conceal facts about the stance of the U.S. administration through fake words,” Press TV said.

Not exactly stirring words.  Hillary must have touched a nerve.

Adding to the regional weirdness, Saudi Arabia, which we'd thought was on board with new sanctions on Iran, is now balking, but no one can quite figure out the Saudi position.  From AP: 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia's foreign minister on Monday expressed doubts about the usefulness of more sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Prince Saud al-Faisal told a news conference in the Saudi capital that the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions demands a more immediate solution than sanctions. He described sanctions as a long-term solution, and he said the threat is more pressing.

More immediate?  The foreign minister didn't ask, didn't tell.  But "immediate" has a very military ring to it.

Stand by for more.

February 16,  2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  FEBRUARY 15,  2010

GREAT – AT 10:05 P.M. ET:  There's good military news this evening.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.

COMMENT:  I'm glad no one read him his Miranda rights.  And I hope they don't bring him to New York to be tried at Radio City after a performance by the Rockettes.

This is good news.  But it should remind us of how foolish it is for the administration to pledge that we'll start withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2011.  Why give the enemy a timeline?

February 15, 2010   Permalink

POLITICAL SHOCKER – AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  It's all the buzz.  Senator Evan Bayh, moderate Democrat of Indiana, has decided not to run for reelection this year. 

Bayh comes from a prominent political family.  His father, Birch Bayh, served in the Senate until defeated by Dan Quayle. 

Bayh's announcement came as a surprise.  It opens a huge opportunity for Republicans in normally red Indiana to pick up a Democratic seat. 

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh will not seek re-election this year, he announced Monday, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country.

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned," Bayh said at a press conference in Indianapolis.

Bayh cited the lack of bipartisan comity as one of the main reasons for the decision. "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said. "Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done." He specifically cited the recent vote that killed the creation of a debt commission as evidence of the partisan gridlock.

Bayh was first elected to the Senate in 1998 and was re-elected easily in 2004. National Republicans had recruited former Sen. Dan Coats to challenge Bayh in 2010 although polling suggested Bayh began the race with a 20-point edge. He also had $13 million in the bank at the end of the year.

COMMENT:  Republicans had already recruited former Senator Dan Coats to run against Bayh, but Coats carries some embarrassing baggage.  He's been out of the state for years, and some of his lobbying work in Washington could raise questions.  Stories are circulating – and we stress that these are unproved – that he's had associations with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. 

There are no obvious Democratic replacements for Bayh on the ballot.  Republicans would almost have to work to lose this one, but they've been successful at that effort before, so don't mark your scorecard just yet. 

February 15,  2010   Permalink

JOE BIDEN, CPA – AT 5:53 P.M. ET:  Would you trust this man to do your taxes?  Joe Biden, self-declared expert on all things governmental, now asserts that New York City exaggerated the anticipated costs of holding terror trials.  From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS) — It's a sign of just how angry the White House is at having its plans to hold terror trials in New York City thwarted.

Vice President Joe Biden took a swing at Mayor Michael Bloomberg, accusing him of inflating estimates of the trial's security costs.

Imaging telling Mayor Bloomberg he doesn't know how to count? Well, that's just what Vice President Biden did, charging that the mayor and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly exaggerated the cost of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his terror pals in Manhattan.

Both Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly put the estimate at $200 million a year for five years, saying it would be an expensive proposition for the City.

Biden, however, disputes the numbers.

"The mayor came along and said the cost for providing security to hold this trial is x-hundreds of millions of dollars which I think is much more than would be needed," Biden said...

...City officials are irked at Biden's assertion.

"I will leave the security of New York City up to the mayor and police commissioner. I think Joe Biden should have talked to City officials. No city should have to put up with the burden and risk of the trial so the administration can have a terroristic pony show," said City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens).

COMMENT:  This is world-class dense on Biden's part.  First, who knows more about budgeting in new York, Mayor Bloomberg and superlative Police Commissioner Kelly, or Joe Biden?  Second, New York is angry enough at the administration for trying to put the show trials in the city.  Why do more damage?

Mr. one-heartbeat-away can't keep his mouth shut.  And the "sophisticates" of journalism said Sarah Palin would have been an embarrassment as vice president.  She would have been Margaret Thatcher compared to Joe.

February 15, 2010   Permalink

BLAIR REDUX? – AT 5:34 P.M. ET:  The New York Times is acknowledging that one of its reporters copied material from another paper:

In a number of business articles in The Times over the past year, and in posts on the DealBook blog on NYTimes.com, a Times reporter appears to have improperly appropriated wording and passages published by other news organizations.

The reporter, Zachery Kouwe, reused language from The Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other sources without attribution or acknowledgment.

The Times was alerted to the problem by editors at The Wall Street Journal. They pointed out extensive similarities between a Journal article, first published on The Journal’s Web site around 12:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, and a DealBook post published two hours later, as well as a related article published in The Times on Feb. 6.

The Times promises appropriate action, but is clearly not ready to indicate what that action will be. 

Assuming the charges are true, this is a dismissal offense.  Readers will recall the Jayson Blair scandal at The Times, in which reporter Blair, in 2003, appropriated material from other journalists and falsified elements of news stories.  There had been repeated warnings about Blair's work, but he was kept on for an inordinate amount of time.  Some observers suggested that The Times was reluctant to dismiss a promising African-American journalist, but eventually the paper forced Blair out and ran a detailed account of his sins.

The paper is moving much more quickly this time.  There is no racial issue involved.   

Generally, news outlets act responsibly when confronted with plagiarism and fakery issues.  Book publishers have a decidedly mixed record.  The Nobel Prize guys, confronted with alleged fakery by literature prize winner Rigoberta Menchu, of Guatemala, did nothing. 

If you're a book author who fakes it, and you can tell a good personal story, you may wind up as a sympathetic guest on a TV talk show. 

February 15, 2010   Permalink

LATE POLLING NEWS – AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  On President's Day, Scott Rasmussen gives us a taste of lasting public assessment of past presidents:

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of adults have a favorable opinion of Washington, including 54% who view the nation's first president very favorably. Ninety-three percent (93%) regard Lincoln favorably, with 63% who have a very favorable opinion of the 16th president.

Huh?  Only 54% view Washington very favorably?  What did he do wrong?  I would have imagined that both he and Lincoln would have scored higher in the "very favorable" category.  Maybe the educational establishment has had its impact in tearing down our past.

Men have a higher opinion of Washington; women favor Lincoln more. Republicans put Washington first, with Lincoln and Reagan nearly tied for second. Democrats rank Lincoln highest and Roosevelt second, well ahead of Washington. Adults not affiliated with either party put Lincoln in first, closely followed by Reagan and Washington.

It is remarkable to see the impact that Reagan has had.  Now, a cautionary note:  People are more familiar with recent presidents, and that accounts for some bias.  But still, Reagan's standing glows. 

I would have put Truman way up there as well.  His handling of the post-war years made it possible for us eventually to win the Cold War. 

February 15, 2010   Permalink

DEFLECTING THE NEXT ATTACK – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  The great Eli Lake, one of the best national-security reporters around, reports on the new challenge for those tasked with preventing terror attacks against the United States – detecting terrorists who speak our language.  Important reporting from the Washington Times:

U.S. and allied counterterrorism authorities have launched a global manhunt for English-speaking terrorists trained in Yemen who are planning attacks on the United States, based on intelligence provided by the suspect in the attempted Christmas Day bombing after he began cooperating.

U.S. officials told The Washington Times that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, facing charges as a would-be suicide bomber,revealed during recent cooperation with the FBI that he met with other English speakers at a terrorist training camp in Yemen. Three U.S. intelligence officials, including one senior official, disclosed on the condition of anonymity some details of the additional bomb plots.

Said one official: "It's safe to say that Abdulmutallab is not the only bullet in the chamber for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," the Islamist terrorist group based in Yemen.

"Farouk took a month to get operational. Once he left [training in Yemen], it did not take very long," the official said.

That is stunning.  Only a month?  The 9-11 hijackers took several years.  If this is accurate, it means Al Qaeda has now developed methods to train and use terrorists far more efficiently than in the past. 

Information about the bomb plots was shared with the FBI after Mr. Abdulmutallab's family traveled from Nigeria to help coax the former student into cooperating, after a period of about five weeks when he refused to help authorities.

The FBI interrogated Mr. Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes after he was arrested on Christmas Day at Detroit Metro Airport upon his arrival on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Officials said the homemade bomb sewn into his underwear failed to detonate but burned him. Had it detonated, the bomb could have killed 289 people aboard the flight.

Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen absorbed in 2008 the largely defeated branch of the group in Saudi Arabia. The group has made threats against the United States, and the Obama administration has authorized drone strikes in Yemen against the group and its leaders.

COMMENT:  Clearly, we can expect more attacks, either on our homeland or on American targets overseas.  Overseas targets are easier to hit, and, as the embassy bombings in Africa proved in the 90s, can be catastrophic. 

February 15, 2010   Permalink

TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK AT WAPO – AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  We follow with interest the progress, or regression, in major news organizations.  The Washington Post has made some announcements, as reported in The Politico:

The Washington Post, which already provides a home for Michael Gerson on its op-ed page, today featured a new weekly online column from another former Bush speechwriter, Marc Thiessen...

...In the past, Thiessen has written in support of torture, and is now making the rounds to promote his new book: “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.”

That is grossly unfair, and, I'm sorry to say, a sign of the leftward drift I've noticed in The Politico in recent weeks, as the Obama administration comes under increasing political pressure.  For the record, Thiessen, an extremely well informed chap, has denied that he supports torture, but says that he supports interrogation techniques that fall short of torture.  One can argue definitions, but for The Politico to say bluntly that he "has written in support of torture" is indefensible journalism.

Another Post decision was disappointing:

The Post also added a liberal voice to the roster this week, giving Katrina vanden Heuvel a weekly online column.

Huh?  When did Katrina vanden Heuvel become a liberal?  The Politico misuses the term, which left-leaning journalists use far too often to describe anyone on the left.  Vanden Heuvel is, in my view, the irresponsible and borderline Marxist editor of The Nation, which is emphatically not a liberal publication, but a far-left magazine.  There is a difference.  The blurring of the difference between "liberal" and "far left" is one of the embarrassments of modern journalism. 

The Post's editorial page, and op-ed page, continue to evolve.  The opinion pages of The Post are far stronger than those of The New York Times, and, from what I've seen, do seek to give readers a variety of well-written viewpoints.  A strong welcome to Marc Thiessen.  Half a clap for vanden Heuvel.

The Post will also add centrist Matt Miller to its op-ed page, which is just fine. 

February 15, 2010  Permalink

CLIMATE SCANDAL PROGRESS – AT 8:14 A.M. ET:  There are some signs, early and tentative, that the climate-change scandal is producing results.  Now, a key British figure in the climate-change establishment is calling for a major investigation.  From The Times of London:

The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.

We stress the phrase, "its former chairman."  Now we're getting somewhere.

In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

They call that common sense.  It is lacking in our own media, and in the White House. 

The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report...

...Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”

I'm a bit hesitant about that.  I'd rather employ senior or retired scientists.  Graduate students are susceptible to career pressure and pressure to get grants.  The grant-giving system may be part of the corruption here.

He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.

“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”

COMMENT:  As this scandal unfolds, the Obama administration is forging ahead with plans for special offices to promote the doctrine of climate change.  One of NASA'S major missions under this administration will be advancing the climate change narrative.  And we are assured by Senator John Kerry that climate-change legislation, based on the trendy narrative, is far from dead.

John F. Kennedy wrote a book called "Why England Slept," about British indifference to Nazi militarism before World War II.  Will someone have to write a book entitled, "Why America Slept"?  Might be too late by then.

February 15, 2010    Permalink

THEY NOTICED – AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  The U.S. is stepping up its rhetoric against Iran.  Question:  Will there be anything serious beyond the words?  From The New York Times:

DOHA, Qatar — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Monday that the United States feared Iran was drifting toward a military dictatorship, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps seizing control of large swaths of Iran’s political, military, and economic establishment.

“That is how we see it,” Mrs. Clinton said in a televised town hall meeting of students at the Doha campus of Carnegie Mellon University. “We see that the government in Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving towards a military dictatorship.”

The United States, she said, was tailoring a new set of tougher United Nations sanctions to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which controls Iran’s nuclear program and which she said had increasingly marginalized the country’s clerical and political leadership.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were remarkably blunt, given her audience in Qatar, a Persian Gulf emirate with close ties to Iran. But they build on the administration’s recent strategy of branding the Revolutionary Guard Corps as an “entitled class” that is the principal menace in Iran.

COMMENT:  Iran is already a dictatorship, its elections a farce.  (You have to have the government's permission to run for office.) 

The proposed sanctions will focus on the Revolutionary Guards to avoid damaging the civilian population?  Will they work?  It seems very unlikely.  The Guards have their own industries and sources of income.  Also, as the "toughest" of the Iranians, they are not going to fold easily in the face of pressure.

And if they don't work, and Iran's nuclear program continues unscathed?  Then the issue of military pressure must be faced head-on.  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned over the weekend that a military strike on Iran would have "unintended consequences," signalling our current opposition to that route. 

So what, exactly, do the Iranians have to fear?  Well, not much. 

And, given the fact that their security forces have successfully put down the democracy movement, at least for now, regime change does not seem likely.

What seems more likely is an Iranian nuclear bomb, or at least the capacity to build one.

Welcome to an Obama "success" story.

February 15,  2010   Permalink