SATURDAY,  JANUARY 9,  2010

SOMETHING BIZARRE GOING ON – AT 7:17 P.M. ET:  Either the White House is, or is not, in a new feud with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our Afghanistan commander.  This is a mystery.  Consider, from the Politico:

The New York Times reports that the White House is disappointed with the slow pace of the Afghan surge and wonders if top Pentagon officials misled them about how quickly they could surge forces to Afghanistan:

"Senior White House advisers are frustrated by what they say is the Pentagon’s slow pace in deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and its inability to live up to an initial promise to have all of the forces in the country by next summer, senior administration officials said Friday.

"Tensions over the deployment schedule have been growing in recent weeks between senior White House officials — among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff — and top commanders, including Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior commander in Afghanistan."

Remember, in the fall, it was reported that the White House was displeased with McChrystal, its hand-picked choice, because he was publicly defending his request for more troops.  Conservatives criticized what they saw as the president's hectoring of its general.

The Politico updated its story:

UPDATE: Senior Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell writes, "There is no story here. As I told the Times, this is a totally contrived controversy fabricated by them and them alone.

Well, I must say....  That's an awfully serious charge against the leading in-the-tank-for-Obama paper in the United States.  We've accused The Times of many things here, but I doubt that it would totally manufacture a story like this.

There's something here.  I'm speculating, but I suspect that the faction that lost the Afghanistan "surge" debate is striking back.  This is a weak president, and he isn't inclined to stop these feuds, and obviously can't control them.  A story like this is a sign of an administration lacking internal discipline, a contrast with the very disciplined Obama political campaign.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 6:52 P.M. ET:  From the great Mark Steyn:

The election of Barack Obama was a fundamentally unserious act by the U.S. electorate, and you can't blame the world's mischief-makers, from Putin to Ahmadinejad to the many Gitmo recidivists now running around Yemen, from drawing the correct conclusion.

For two weeks, the government of the United States has made itself a global laughingstock. Don't worry, "the system worked," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano. Don't worry, he was an "isolated extremist," said the president. Don't worry, we're banning bathroom breaks for the last hour of the flight, said the TSA. Don't worry, "U.S. border security officials" told the Los Angeles Times, we knew he was on the plane, and we "had decided to question him when he landed." Don't worry, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, assured the Sunday talk shows, sure, we read him his rights, and he's lawyered up but he'll soon see that "there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements."

Oh, that's grand. Try to kill hundreds of people in an act of war, and it's the starting point for a plea deal.

COMMENT:  While the administration moved mountains – well, molehills – to change its rhetoric toward the end of last week, I suspect that most Americans now know where the president's heart really is.  He is a leftist academic who really has no problem with a lax attitude toward terror, or man-made disasters, or whatever his latest term is.  And he has no problem with plea deals for mass murderers.  That's what he was taught in his radical upbringing, and in the chic, leftist precincts of Hyde Park, Chicago (where I used to live.)  It all fits...and it should have been explored before the 2008 election.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN JOURNALISM – AT 6:44 P.M. ET:  A headline from The New York Times:

Seeing Old Age as a Never-Ending Adventure

As Johnny Carson's "Aunt Blabby" used to say, "Don't say never-ending to an old person."

If old age turns out to be never-ending for anyone, that will be the most remarkable person to have ever lived.

Some headline writer's thinking cap wasn't on.

January 9,  2010   Permalink

JUST WHEN I THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO READ AN AP STORY – AT 1:14 P.M. ET:  Well, maybe it was too good to be true, reform at AP, I mean.  The news service has done some fine work in the last 48 hours, finally noticing that Al Qaeda is targeting the West and that Obama blames BUSH (!!) for almost everything.

But now AP disappoints once more.  This AP story has gone viral around the internet:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani set off a tempest about terrorism Friday with his claim that the United States "had no domestic attacks" under former US president George W. Bush.

Giuliani somehow neglected to mention the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in his own city as he contrasted US President Barack Obama's handling of terror cases with that of Bush in light of the failed Christmas Day attempt by a passenger to blow up a US-bound flight. The September 11 attacks toppled New York's World Trade Center, killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and earned Giuliani accolades as "America's mayor."

The Republican said of Democrat Obama on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "what he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did."

While saying he believes Obama "turned the corner" on understanding the nature of terrorism when he publicly declared the United States at war, Giuliani added that Obama has plenty of room to improve on terror.

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush," Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama."

COMMENT:  This is absurd.  Rudy was no doubt sloppy in his comments, but what he clearly meant was that under Bush we had no successful attacks on American soil after 9-11.  In other words, Bush zipped things up pretty tightly as he launched the war on terror. 

The AP went a little nuts on this.  Indeed, much later in the story, it takes it back:

When Giuliani was questioned later Friday about his statement, he explained to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he misspoke.

"I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since September 11," he said. He said after all the warnings of more attacks that came immediately after September 11, many were surprised that this country avoided another major terror attack.

Giuliani said: "I did omit the words 'since September 11.' I apologize for that."

There is no story here, and yet it's all over the internet.

This is not good journalism.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

I'M SHOCKED, SHOCKED, TO FIND THERE'S NOTICING GOING ON – AT 11:56 A.M. ET:  What is happening at the AP?  Has there been a religious experience?  In 48 hours the Associated Press has noticed fully two major facts that we've been discussing for a very long time. 

First, as we breathlessly reported yesterday, the AP noticed that Al Qaeda is targeting the West.  And now, prayerfully, there's this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- He says ''the buck stops with me,'' but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles -- the economy, terrorism, health care -- on George W. Bush. 

Thanks, fellas.  Glad you figured it out.  Were there big staff meetings involved?

Over and over, Obama keeps reminding Americans of the mess he inherited and all he's doing to fix it. A sharper, give-me-some-credit tone has emerged in his language as he bemoans people's fleeting memory about what life was like way back in 2008, particularly on the economy.

It is, after all, what amateurs do.

While candid about what he called his team's ''screw-up'' in the botched Christmas airliner attack, Obama has made a point of underlining all the good he believes his government has done, too.

''Our progress has been unmistakable,'' Obama said as the new year began. ''We've disrupted terrorist financing, cutting off recruiting chains, inflicted major losses on al-Qaida's leadership, thwarted plots here in the United States and saved countless American lives.''

Yeah, and the Titanic made it more than halfway across. 

They sure thwarted that Fort Hood plot.  And, if I recall, the airline bomber was thwarted by other passengers.

On terrorism, Americans are less concerned about quiet successes than troubling failures, especially one that evoked harrowing memories of Sept. 11, 2001.

On the economy, people prefer good news now, not updates on how things are gradually getting less bad.

Yup.  If there's a Pulitzer for noticing, AP gets it.

"I think we have been successful in averting disaster,'' Obama said on Dec. 16 about righting the economy. ''You know, you don't get a lot of credit for that, because nobody knows how bad it could have been.''

"You know, President Roosevelt, the Japanese could have sunk even more battleships." 

Geez.

''The president himself, not surprisingly, may feel quite satisfied with accomplishments in his first year,'' said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. ''But we don't see signs that the American public is positive.''

I believe they call that the bottom line.

January 9,  2010   Permalink

THE FORGOTTEN STORY – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  With all our focus on terror, we've pushed aside a story that is even larger, essentially the collapse of our Iran policy.  The New Year's deadline for Iran to show progress in negotiating its nuclear program has come and gone, with no punishment, and Washington is now talking of softer, "targeted" sanctions, rather than the "crippling sanctions" that were all the rage only a month ago.  Iran has noticed:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed continued defiance to the threat of further sanctions on his country on Saturday, saying the Islamic Republic will not be deterred from pursuing its nuclear program.

"They issued several resolutions and sanctioned Iran," Ahmadinejad said in a speech translated by the AFP news agency. "They think Iranians will fall on their knees over these things but they are mistaken."

"We are not interested in conflicts [but they] are continually demanding things," he said. "They should not think they can put up obstacles in Iranians' way ... the government will whole-heartedly defend Iran's rights and will not back down one iota."

Iran even escalated its demands:

Meanwhile, in an announcement seemingly in line with his confrontational attitude towards Western nations, the hardline president has ordered the formation of a team to study the damages the country suffered from the 1941 Allied invasion in order to demand compensation.

Ahmadinejad said Iran suffered immensely after it was invaded by Britain and the Soviet Union during World War II despite its declared neutrality and was never compensated.

And...

Ahmadinejad also warned that Iran may also demand compensation for the damages it suffered during World War I, the Western support for the former Pahlavi Dynasty and its hostility towards Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

COMMENT:  We're being laughed at.  This is what Obama gets for his naive "outreach" policy.

January 9, 2010   Permalink

OBAMA'S STANDING – AT 10:09 A.M. ET:  President Obama came out of New Year's with a slight bump upward in the polls, but is now sliding back to the depressing – from his viewpoint – numbers that plagued him before the holiday, as Rasmussen reports:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.....

...Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters.  Other polls, those taken among "all adults" or "registered voters," tend to show the president somewhat stronger. 

Rasmussen's results reflect polling done as the administration went on a major offensive to show that it's serious about terrorism.  The public was apparently not impressed. 

The "at least somewhat approve" number, 46%, approximately parallels John McCain's standing in the last presidential election.

January 9,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  JANUARY 8,  2010

TOOTING OUR HORNS, APPROPRIATELY – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  Meeting in secret, the great minds of the Dem leadership in Congress are fashioning the final health "reform" bill that will be slammed through the House and Senate, despite wide public opposition.

One argument they'll use is that the system is "broken."  Well, okay, the system needs improvement.  No one denies that.  But broken?  Maybe it's time to look at some basic facts, as the Wall Street Journal does, about the greatness of the American health-care system:

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Some very good information there, correct?  Then why don't we hear it from the mainstream media?  You don't think they're...they're...?  No, I don't want to accuse.

...cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

And I haven't seen too many bodies in the streets.

...our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

Take that, UN!

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country...

...So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

But we will get health-care "reform" because the leftist agenda demands it, as a matter, not of health, but of ideology.  Only 20% of Americans consider themselves liberals, yet look what's being done by the "representatives" of the people.

Finally...

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

COMMENT:  Quite true.  But you'll never hear it from the UN, or from the trendy media.  After all, how can any decent person insult Sweden?  That's a leftist felony.

January 8, 2009    Permalink

THEY'LL LOVE THIS AT THE WHITE HOUSE – AT 5:41 P.M. ET:  Charles Hurt, in the New York Post, asks the question many Democrats must be asking quietly:  Was Hillary Clinton right about Barack Obama?  We can imagine Hillary bookmarking this on the office computer:

WASHINGTON -- Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all along.

During the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

If -- in a national security crisis -- the "red phone" rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it.

Or he would fail to answer it.

Or he would be on vacation.

Ah yes, I remember it well. 

Obama lashed out at Clinton, dismissing her and accusing her of desperation and playing upon people's fears.

"Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign, we're trying to scare people," replied Clinton, appropriately mystified.

Well, yesterday those chickens came home to roost.

Well, we can't say chickens.  Might be sexist.  Let's just say, "those intellectual concerns."

On a day when the administration desperately hoped to calm America's fears that a soft-headed, bumbling raft of politically correct peaceniks had taken over and fallen asleep at the national security switch, there wasn't much to see in the White House other than bungling of previous bungles.

Wonderfully stated.

In the future, Obama said, "we must follow the leads that we get."

You think?

"We can't sit on information that could protect the American people."

Seriously?

"We must do better in keeping dangerous people off of airplanes."

You don't say!

But why should we be surprised?

Never will be forgotten Obama's trip to Cairo last year to address the Muslim world, when he said that he believes it is "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Forget for a moment that such folly appears nowhere in the American president's job description.
If you have time for such nonsense, then you are not spending enough time thinking about how to thwart this enemy.

But it is not like we weren't warned by Hillary Clinton.

I have to admit it, I have to concede it.  I never thought I'd commit such heresy.  Am I spiritually lost?

We know we're in trouble when we look to a sixties radical feminist, anti-war activist for guidance on national security.  But she was right.

January 8, 2009   Permalink

THIS JUST IN – AT 5:31 P.M. ET:  Headline from the Associated Press:

Attacks show al-Qaida-inspired groups target West

Well, that settles that.  Now that the AP confirmed it, we know it's true.

January 8,  2009   Permalink

AMERICANS FAVOR PROFILING – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  The term "profiling" is inflammatory in certain circles.  For some, it conjures up images of racism and bigotry.  But, in fact, law enforcement uses modified forms of profiling every day because, with reasonable protections, it makes sense.  The American people agree, as Rasmussen found out:

The Christmas Day terrorist attempt by a Nigerian Muslim on a U.S. airliner has reignited the debate on racial and ethnic profiling in airports, but most Americans agree that profiling is necessary to ensure airline safety.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of adults say factors such as race, ethnicity and overall appearance should be used to determine which boarding passengers to search at airports. Twenty-six percent (26%) say these factors should not be used to determine which passengers to search. Another 15% are not sure.

Interestingly, however, even more Americans (71%) believe such profiling is necessary in today’s environment. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree and see profiling as an unnecessary violation of civil rights.

COMMENT:  I suspect there's far more profiling going on than authorities admit.  They have to profile.  If most car thefts, say, are committed by blond-haired men in their twenties, it makes sense, if you're hunting a car thief, to focus extra attention on blond-haired men in their twenties. 

The Israelis, who believe that you fight terror by looking at the individual first, not devices, profile regularly, but do it professionally.  A catastrophe aboard one of their airliners was averted by careful questioning of a passenger, who was being used, without her knowledge, to carry a bomb. 

Only when we get past our obsession with not "offending" will we make real progress in strengthening our security.

January 8,  2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  From John Lehman, secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, and a member of the 9-11 Commission, on Obama's anti-terror policy.  From NRO:

"President Obama continues to totally ignore one of the important thrusts of our 9/11 recommendations, which is that you have to approach counterterrorism as a multiagency intelligence issue, and not as a law-enforcement issue. He’s made a lot of commission members angry for dismissing our report and ignoring key recommendations.” Obama, he adds, has taken a “lawyer-like, politically-correct approach” to national security issues like terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists. “You got to blame the president for enforcing the politically-correct and legalistic policies that led to these failures.”

COMMENT:  Exactly right.  Members of the government take their cue from the president.  For a year that cue has been that terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, that it's been exaggerated, and that part of it is our fault.  Great for the morale, huh?   And, of course, one of the first steps Attorney General Eric Holder took upon assuming office was to launch an inquiry into the actions of CIA agents during the Bush administration – no doubt a superb recruiting tool for the agency.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a stalwart American ally who hasn't gotten the credit he deserves for standing with us in tough times, said this about terror today:  "Personally I think we will defeat this terrorism when we understand it is one battle, one struggle. This is a global movement with an ideology."

Again, exactly right.  The president, even yesterday, dragged in the old leftist chestnuts about "poverty" and all kinds of social ills as causes of terrorism, forgetting that many of the most prominent terrorists come from middle-class or wealthy families, and that some have even been physicians.

Terror originates, not with social conditions, but with ideas.  And those ideas extend well beyond Al Qaeda, which is just one group.  The president yesterday finally said that we were at war with that group, but mentioned no one else.  That must have brought great relief to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other worthies that Mr. Obama and his Ivy League cohorts apparently haven't noticed.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

NO STIMULATION FROM THE STIMULUS – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  The jobs picture for December, hyped in advance as a probable gift from the gods, turned out to be no such thing, as the Washington Post reports:

WASHINGTON -- The economy lost more jobs in December and the unemployment rate was unchanged, as a sluggish economic recovery has yet to revive hiring among the nation's employers.

The Labor Department says employers cut 85,000 jobs last month, worse than the 8,000 drop analysts expected.

A sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work, kept the unemployment rate at 10 percent, the same as in November. Once people stop looking for jobs, they are no longer counted among the unemployed.

COMMENT:  And in the midst of this, Congress is about to break the bank with a hugely expensive health-care package, only months after passing a hugely expensive stimulus plan.  The stimulus didn't stimulate many jobs, apparently, except maybe at ACORN, which is always hiring. 

Barring a catastrophic terror attack, the economy will be the big issue in the 2010 midterms.  So far, the Dems get an F.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

DID YOU EVER THINK YOU'D SEE THIS? – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to a remarkable front page from a German leftist newspaper:

Yes, you've got that right.  It's Barack Obama morphing into George W. Bush.  If someone told you a year ago that a European paper would print that, would you have believed it?

It seems that the German left is upset with the new messiah because he hasn't turned out to be the Marxist pacifist they'd expected.  The newspaper above writes:

"Barack Obama has never -- not even during his electoral campaign -- made a secret of the fact that he does not rule out war as a political tool. Otherwise he would not have been elected. Those in Europe who believed that his statement wasn't serious, and was accompanied by a knowing wink towards the pacifists, only have themselves to blame. Military strength and the willingness to use it, are fundamental in the United States, which has not had territorial wars since the mid-19th century."

"You don't have to like it, but ignoring this global political reality ... reveals naivete. Whoever saw Obama as a prince of peace has made a mistake. He is a rational military commander. But at least he is rational, and honest -- at least as far as we have seen so far. Both of these traits set him apart from his predecessor."

COMMENT:  Oh dear, oh dear.  It's the same thing in Europe as in the U.S. – a left-wing paper must get in a dig at BUSH (!!).  Otherwise, the presses freeze in place. 

As for the substance, the paper apparently believes that Obama is more rational than Bush.  Seriously?  Bush understood the enemy; it took Obama a year to figure it out.  As for honesty, the German left editors might note Obama's pledge to open health-care hearings to CSPAN.  Compare please with reality.

Europe has always had its illusions.  Those illusions just continue.

January 8, 2010   Permalink

OH, THOSE ULTRA-HIGH STANDARDS – HOW WILL WE EVER MEET THEM?  –  AT 8:03 A.M. ET:  The New York Times ran a story on the tightening Senate race in Massachusetts between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown, which will end in a special election on January 19th.  In the middle of the story is this:

The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said.

COMMENT:  "Does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times.."?  What standards would those be?  It might be just lovely if The Times would take a look at Rasmussen's track record, which is one of the best in the industry.  That determines the value of a polling organization. 

Now, as for the comment by a certain Ms. Marsh, presumably some kind of expert, that independents are unlikely to vote in a special election at "an odd time of year," one becomes baffled.  Rasmussen specifically polls among likely voters, which is why his polls are so accurate.  And voters have been known to show interest, even in January, although it is such an odd month.

Nose out of the air, Times.  Your story doesn't make sense.

January 8,  2010   Permalink