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.

MARCH 7,  2011

MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA? – AT 8:53 P.M. ET:  Reportedly, there are some plans to get a UN Security Council resolution on Libya, but the effort looks vague and anemic, and dependent on Russian and Chinese support.  From Reuters and the Jerusalem Post:

Britain and France are preparing a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya, and diplomats said on Monday it will be tough but not impossible to get Russia's and China's support.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said in London that Britain was working with other countries on a draft. Diplomats in Paris and New York said the work was being done by Britain and France in close consultation with the United States and Germany.

Hague told the British parliament there were "credible reports" that Libyan government forces had used helicopter gunships against civilians as supporters of Muammar Gaddafi try to put down a revolt against his 41-year rule.

Diplomats said a decision by France and Britain to submit a draft resolution to the 15-nation council would depend on whether certain "triggers" for action were met. These, they said, could include a marked deterioration of the humanitarian situation or mass aerial bombardments of civilian areas.

"We just want to be ready should the decision to launch negotiations on such a (no-fly zone) resolution be made so that we can make as rapid progress as possible," a diplomat said.

Some envoys said the NATO alliance could be charged with enforcing the zone. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that the alliance would only do so if the UN Security Council authorized it.

COMMENT:  Where is the leadership from the United States?  Need we ask?

This looks awfully weak.  If there's a humanitarian crisis, nations and alliances, such as NATO, can act on their own.  Who needs the cynicism and weakness of the UN? 

I can't imagine Gaddafi feeling too panicked by this.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:27 P.M. ET:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Charlie Sheen was fired Monday from "Two and a Half Men" by Warner Bros. Television following repeated misbehavior and weeks of the actor's angry, often-manic media campaign against his studio bosses.  The action was taken after "careful consideration" and is effective immediately, the studio said in a statement. No decision has been made on the show's future without its star, said Paul McGuire, a Warner spokesman.

In the grown-up world someone like Sheen would have been fired years ago.  But Hollywood is not the grown-up world.  You may be sure that, as this is written, other suits in other studios are figuring out a way to get Sheen to work for them...for more money than Warner paid.  Hey, he's hot.

March 7, 2011       Permalink

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Political Scientist Walter Russell Mead, a good guy and a voice of sanity in the academic world, performs a real service in giving us a list of the characters and institutions that have been supporting Muammar Gaddafi over the years.  Mead calls them "Gaddafi's Toads":

Gaddafi Toad Number One: The “Human Rights Commission” of the “United Nations”

Two: Gordon Brown and His Government

Gaddafi Toad Number Three: Hugo Chavez

Gaddafi Toad Number Four: Nicholas Sarkozy

Gaddafi Toad Number Five: Tony Blair

Gaddafi Toad Number Six: Louis Farrakhan

Gaddafi Toad Number Seven: Silvio Berlusconi

Eight: Fidel Castro

Nine: The London School of Economics

Ten: Delusional American College Professors

Read the article.  It's worth it.  The usual suspects are on that list, but there are certainly some disappointments, like Blair and Sarkozy.  But once again we see the level of collaboration that dictators have enjoyed.

I'd add one more name to Mead's list:  Nelson Mandela, the sainted one, who actually has a pretty dismal human rights record, and has been a Gaddafi pal for years.  Most mainstream media reporting from South Africa ended when apartheid ended, so the American audience has little understanding of the hypocrisy and cynicism that govern South Africa today.  A beacon of light it is not.

March 7, 2011     Permalink

CHRISTIE ON FIRE IN NEW POLL – AT 10:56 A.M. ET:  A new Quinnipiac poll shows powerful support of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  Christie swears he isn't running, but such oaths are meaningless.  He can change his mind later this year.  Bill Clinton, in 1992, got into the race late and won.   

First Lady Michelle Obama gets the warmest rating, with a 60.1 degree mean score, more than 3 degrees hotter than fourth-place President Barack Obama, when American voters rate their feelings about politicians and other national figures in a Quinnipiac University national thermometer poll released today. New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie is the hottest politician on the thermometer.

At 59.2 degrees, former President Bill Clinton is second place on the thermometer scale by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll.

Gov. Christie is third with 57 degrees, topping President Obama who gets 56.5 degrees. But 55 percent of American voters don't know enough about Christie to form an opinion.

Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives and now the Democratic leader in the Republican-controlled body, gets the coolest rating from voters. Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid ranks next lowest and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ranks third from the bottom.

Among Republican voters, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty gets the hottest score among 2012 GOP presidential contenders. American voters don't fire Donald Trump, but they're not fired up about him, ranking him 16th in a field of 23 people.

"New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie has ruled out running for president next year despite the urging of many Republicans, but he has clearly made a positive impression on the American people, at least the half who are familiar with him," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "It is important to remember that this measure is not any kind of presidential trial heat, but it does reflect how voters feel about national figures, including politicians."

COMMENT:  This is a very rough poll, and I wouldn't wager anything of value on it.  But the fact that Chris Christie, a first-term governor, ranks so high has got to be worthy of some notice.  I do feel he faces obstacles as a candidate, not the least of which being an abrasive manner that is exciting at first, but which can wear thin.  But I hope he's in the race.  It'll liven things up, and provide a sizzle that's been lacking in Republican primary races since 1980, the year of Reagan.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

HUH? – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  This is completely inappropriate.  From The Politico:

UP FROM DOWN UNDER: Australia's prime minister is paying a visit to President Obama on Monday, but unlike during usual visits by heads of state, they're not scheduled to take reporters' questions after their meetings.

Instead, Obama and Julia Gillard "will deliver statements to the press in the Oval Office," the White House said in guidance to reporters. That's after they talk to each other about "the strong ties between the United States and Australia, our shared political and economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and our work together around the world, including in Afghanistan and as members of APEC and the G20.".

COMMENT:  Australia is one of our closest allies.  The Aussies have always been there for us, and without complaint.  And yet, Prime Minister Gillard is being relegated to a press statement.

Obviously, the reason for this is that Obama doesn't want to face reporters' questions.  The man who isn't there wants to be even less there.  But this is no way to treat the prime minister.  And yet, it is consistent with the way Obama treats our closest allies, especially those who have the nerve to speak English.  Maybe our president still bears a grudge about the British Empire.  Time to get over it, Barack. 

We hope Ms. Gillard is given a warm reception by members of Congress to make up for our fearful leader's lack of class. 

March 7, 2011     Permalink

GOP LOOKS STRONG IN NEXT YEAR'S SENATE RACES – AT 9:27 A.M. ET:  The Hill assesses the early signs for next year's Senate races and finds them good for the GOP.  Clearly, if the Republicans can control both the House and the Senate, they can have a decisive impact on Obama's domestic policy, if Obama is reelected, although the effect on foreign policy would be much more uncertain:

An early spate of Democratic Senate retirements has put Republicans in solid shape to retake the majority in the upper chamber next year.

The first edition of The Hill's 2012 race ratings puts five Democratic-held seats in the toss-up column. Republicans need a net gain of at least three seats to win the Senate.

Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) are the two incumbents that top of the list of vulnerable Senate Democrats in 2012. And, thanks to retirements, another three Democratic-held seats are toss-ups -- the ones held by Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.), Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

On the House side, Democrats need to pick up 25 seats to win back the majority and, as a starting point, Dems are targeting 14 of the most Democratic-leaning House seats held by Republican lawmakers.

Among them are freshmen Reps. Allen West (R-Fla.), Robert Dold (R-Ill.), Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) and Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.). All occupy districts won by both Obama in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004; and all begin the cycle in our toss-up category.

The Hill assesses the most competitive races here.  A third of the Senate will be up for election next year, some 23 Democratic seats and only 10 Republican seats, making the Democrats far more vulnerable right out of the gate.  The Hill rates only eight of those Dem seats as safe and another six as likely Democratic.  Only four lean Democratic and five are toss-ups.  For the GOP, five of their ten seats up for reelection are considered safe.  Three are likely GOP, and only two are toss-ups.  The Hill lists Scott Brown of Massachusetts as a toss-up.  I'd rate him as a bit stronger than that.

Much will depend on the economy.  But much will also depend on the quality of the GOP candidates.  The Republicans could have won control of the Senate, or come razor close, in 2010 except for some poor candidate choices in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada.  This is a mistake to be avoided, and that means keeping the rigid ideologists under control.

March 7, 2011      Permalink

THE OBAMA/CARTER AXIS – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  We are entering a period of reflection on our actions in the Mideast since the first revolutionary gasp in Tunisia many weeks ago.  There is clearly a growing consensus that Obama simply can't handle events.  They're handling him.  In that sense, he is a kind of Jimmah Carter clone.  At least Carter had gone to the Naval Academy and knew which end of a rifle sends the bullet flying.

Reader Susan Kohen of Connecticut refers us to an excellent piece by Middle East commentator Barry Rubin, who has shown an uncanny sense for what is happening:

I'm worried because others aren't worried. The more they show that they don't understand the dangers, the greater the dangers become.

President Franklin Roosevelt said about the Great Depression that there was, "Nothing to fear but fear itself." That is, Americans should be confident about their abilities to solve problems. But he didn't say, when German forces seized one country after another, that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Europe. Nor did he say, as the Japanese Empire expanded, that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Asia.

President Harry Truman didn't say that Americans shouldn't be afraid of change in Eastern Europe when the Soviets gained power over the governments there or China became Communist.

These (Democratic) presidents recognized the danger and worked to counteract it as best they could under the circumstances.

In contrast, while giving lip service to the idea that it's a "dangerous time," Obama never points to what the dangers are because, frankly, he has no idea. All the points he makes about these changes are positive, cheerleading.

And...

And so when Obama says:

"I'm actually confident that 10 years from now we're going to be able to look back and say that this was the dawning of an entirely new and better era. One in which people are striving not to be against something but to be for something."

Remember those words. He has absolutely no understanding of the Arabic-speaking world, the Muslim-majority world, or the Middle East whatsoever. How are these new regimes going to stay in power, smite their rivals, and make up for not delivering the material goods to their people? What is the world view of these forces? How do they perceive America, the West, and Israel? These are the questions that should be asked, and answered, in order to understand what the world will look like in a decade.

COMMENT:  Our fear here is that Obama not only lacks understanding of the Muslim world, he is served by people who are even more dense...like intelligence officials who describe the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate and even secular.  (As Charles Krauthammer said, that's a strange name for a secular organization.)

The number of pieces critical of Obama is building up.  Even John Kerry, hardly a warmonger, is advocating that we set up a no-fly zone over Libya and has ridiculed, as has John McCain, the Pentagon's warnings about how tough it might be. 

Where is the international applause for Obama that we were promised?  Where is the godlike wisdom?  Where are all the young people of the world who were supposed to fall in line behind him?  Where is his own party, strangely silent about one of the great convulsions of our time?

Many on the right cautioned in 2008 that Obama was Carter lite.  The assessment was correct, maybe even understated.  He is not leading in this new period in the Mideast.  Sometimes the president doesn't even appear to be there.  Even Ruth Marcus, the diehard liberal columnist for the Washington Post described the administration last week as the "Where's Waldo?" presidency.

So far, Mr. Obama's inadequacy does not appear to be hurting his poll rankings.  Americans don't often vote on foreign policy, but on economic policy.  But foreign policy mistakes can be bloody, or fatal.  I hope we understand that when we go to the polls a year from November.

March 7, 2011       Permalink

LIBYA AT A TURNING POINT – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Libya is fast becoming a consuming issue in American foreign policy because it provides such an acid display of the Obama administration's inability to conduct policy under pressure.  More on that later.

This morning the rebels are attempting to regroup after taking a beating yesterday.  From Fox:

RAS LANOUF, Libya -- Libyan rebels said Monday they will regroup and bring in heavy weapons after forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi pounded opposition fighters with helicopter gunships, artillery and rockets to stop the rebels' rapid advance toward the capital.

An airstrike hit Ras Lanouf, a key oil port held by the rebels, on Monday but there were no casualties. A day earlier, a heavy assault by pro-regime forces stalled the rebel advance.

Mohamad Samir, an army colonel fighting with the rebels, told The Associated Press that his forces need reinforcements from the east after Sunday's setback.

"The orders are to stay here and guard the refinery, because oil is what makes the world go round," said rebel fighter Ali Suleiman, speaking at one of the checkpoints set up around Ras Lanouf.

Sunday's fighting appeared to signal the start of a new phase in the conflict, with Qaddafi's regime unleashing its air power on the rebel force trying to oust the ruler of 41 years. Resorting to heavy use of air attacks signaled the regime's concern that it needed to check the advance of the rebel force toward Sirte -- Qaddafi's hometown and stronghold.

COMMENT:  The good news is that the rebels appear willing to stand and fight, not always the game plan in Mideast conflicts.  The bad news is that major parts of the Libyan military have remained loyal to Qaddafi, at least for now.  The rebels are outgunned, and they apparently have no planes.

As we've said, there may come a point when the West will have to intervene, simply to prevent a catastrophe.  The White House chief of Staff, William Daley of the Chicago House of Daley, tried to throw cold beer on that prospect yesterday, but policy will evolve, we assume, to fit conditions on the ground.

March 7, 2011     Permalink

MARCH 6,  2011

BLOODY LIBYA – AT 11:36 P.M. ET:   At this hour it appears that things are not going well for the Libyan rebels.  From WaPo:

Moammar Gaddafi's loyalists escalated a lethal counterattack on Sunday, heightening assaults on rebel-held cities near his western stronghold of Tripoli and pushing back opposition forces attempting to advance toward the capital.

Gaddafi's expanding campaign - including a ground assault on Misurata, the nation's third-largest city - appeared to dash rebel hopes of putting a swift end to his 41-year-long rule.

From The New York Times:

AL UQAYLAH, Libya — With tanks, helicopters and fighter planes, troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi attacked rebel troops in the coastal town of Bin Jawwad on Sunday and pushed them east, stalling, for the moment, hopes by the antigovernment fighters of a steady march toward Tripoli.

From Fox:

Helicopter gunships strafed opposition fighters as forces loyal to Moammar Qadhafi pounded them with artillery and rockets, dramatically escalating a counteroffensive against rebels advancing on the capital.

After securing control of two important oil ports (at Brega and Ras Lanouf), rebels reached a town (Bin Jawwad) about 110 miles east of Qadhafi's hometown last night before pulling back. Pro-Qadhafi forces moved into the town overnight and surprised the rebels at daybreak, triggering battles that raged throughout the day.

At the same time, leading members of Congress are demanding that President Obama do more:

Congressional leaders prodded the Obama administration on Sunday for a more aggressive U.S. response to Libya's increasingly brutal attacks on opposition groups - calling for a no-fly zone and other military measures - but White House officials cautioned against being drawn into a potentially protracted and costly military campaign.

And a surprise name pops up:

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for the first time raised the possibility of bombing military airfields in Libya to deny the use of runways to Moammar Gaddafi's air force. Two of the Senate's top Republicans, Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.), also spoke in favor of U.S. military involvement to keep Libyan warplanes grounded.

COMMENT:  There are a number of reports saying that Obama has asked the Saudis to arm the Libyan opposition. 

This is an hour-by-hour story.

March 6, 2011      Permalink

AS THEY SAY, TIMING IS EVERYTHING – AT 11:12 P.M. ET:  And some people just don't have it.  The Mideast is in flames, Muslims are being slaughtered, and there was a rally in Times Square today.  What was it about, you ask.  Well, even if you didn't ask, you'll get an answer. 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Some 300 people gathered in Times Square on Sunday to speak out against a planned congressional hearing on Muslim terrorism, criticizing it as xenophobic and saying that singling out Muslims, rather than extremists, is unfair.

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons and the imam who had led an effort to build an Islamic center near the World Trade Center site were among those who addressed the crowd.

"Our real enemy is not Islam or Muslims," said the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. "The enemy is extremism and radicalism and radical ideology."

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, has said that affiliates of al-Qaida are radicalizing some American Muslims. He's planned hearings starting Thursday on the threat he says they pose.

COMMENT:  Not a word about the slaughter in the Mideast.  Instead, we get this fiction about American Islamophobia.  Oh, yeah, right.  Muslims in America are being rounded up by the thousands. 

I don't know of another country that would have shown the tolerance this nation did after 9-11.  Right in New York City, where almost 3,000 were murdered in a few hours, Muslims continued going to their mosques without anyone bothering them. 

This "rally" was directed, as the story noted, against the upcoming hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims.  Before World War II there were investigations into the infiltration of the German-American community by Nazi agents.  The hearings were valid and important, and no one believed that we'd become Germanophobic.  Some of our leading commanders in World War II, like Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz, were German-Americans. 

There is plenty to be investigated.  Peter King is a responsible guy.  He can be counted on to run a clean, careful probe, and he should be encouraged.

March 6, 2011       Permalink

FASCINATING – I DIDN'T KNOW SHE WAS GOING – AT 10:51 A.M. ET:  Sarah Palin is doing some international traveling.  I don't really think this means she's running, but it's intriguing.  From The Politico:

Sarah Palin’s trip to India this month might seem out of the blue, but it’s one piece of a much larger trend: The world’s largest democracy goes gaga for American politics.

Most Americans couldn’t even name the Indian prime minister, but the press in India covers minute details of the American political scene.

Its top news magazine devoted an entire issue to President Barack Obama’s November state visit to India. One major newspaper headlined a story, “Tea Party time in the US,” about the 2010 midterm elections. The main New Delhi TV station ran a piece on Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” after the January shootings in Tucson, Ariz., and covered her daughter Bristol’s engagement to Levi Johnston.

And...

Palin’s visit allows her to build some foreign-policy cred with a visit to a friendly ally — and score some points with Indian-American voters in the States.

And...

All forms of media have covered Palin’s gaffes and her family issues. But their fascination with her isn’t just limited to the sensational or the salacious. She’s going to India on March 19 to keynote India Today’s famous yearly conclave — a gathering attended, according to the magazine, by “government ministers, political leaders, top bureaucrats, diplomats, intellectuals, scientists, academicians and thought leaders, corporate heads and senior business executives.”

Her 2010 predecessor in the keynote role? Former President Bill Clinton. In 2009, it was former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Hey, this is pretty special stuff.  I hope Sarah prepares thoroughly this time, and gives a speech equal to the one she gave at the 2008 Republican convention. 

I'm looking forward to the way the American media handles this.  If Sarah makes a hit, what will the "respected" pundits say...once they recover from their heart attacks?  They'll probably try to find any cultural gaffes she commits, and use that as the headline.  We will defeat them.

March 6, 2011      Permalink

BOY, IS THIS WEIRD – AT 10:29 A.M. ET:  From London's Daily Mirror, and other sources:

Barack Obama will demand the Lockerbie bomber as the price of supporting a new government in Libya.
The US President says the deportation of freed Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi is a condition of him backing the rebels if they win power.

Mr Obama wants Megrahi to be tried in the States for putting a bomb on the New York-bound jet that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, a crime for which he was convicted by a Scottish court

Cancer-stricken Megrahi has disappeared in Libya where he has been living after being released from jail because he supposedly had only months to live,

Intelligence sources fear he has been taken into ruler Colonel Muhamar Gaddafi’s own compound - and that Libyan leader would rather kill him than let his Lockerbie secrets be revealed.

Megrahi is believed to know the full story of the bombing in which 270 died and can name everyone involved - including Gaddafi.

COMMENT:  Look, I'm all for having this "terminally ill" man (who goes on forever) dispatched to the United States, but this certainly is an odd time to bring it up.  After all, what did the rebels have to do with this case?  And to make our backing of a rebel government dependent on extradition seems almost as if we're trying to deny backing. 

Of course, given Obama's history of appeasing dictators, maybe he's missing Gaddafi already.  He certainly did nothing to dislodge the Iranian mullahs during the 2009 Iranian revolt. 

I'd imagine that, if Gaddafi falls, Mr. al-Megrahi will suddenly suffer a severe misfortune, for the reason stated in the story, and that extradition, except for remains, will cease to be an issue.

March 6, 2011       Permalink 

THE LIBYAN REVOLT – WE THINK – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  It continues to be extremely difficult to get hard news out of Libya.  There are few Western reporters, and the claims by both sides keep flying.  From CNN:

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- Throngs of people took part in a boisterous demonstration Sunday supporting Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and insisting that the government had triumphed in recovering key Libyan cities, despite witness accounts that the opposition maintained control in some of those sites.

In the eastern Libyan town of Misrata, a fierce battle was under way Sunday, as people seeking an end to Gadhafi's 42-year-rule fought his heavily armed forces.

"People are willing to die for the cause," a witness told CNN, describing them as "fearless" and "amazing." The rebels are using machine guns or, in some cases, just sticks to fight off pro-Gadhafi forces who use tanks and heavy artillery.

Even as the witness described the heavy fighting under way, pro-Gadhafi demonstrators in the capital of Tripoli said they were celebrating the government's victory in Misrata.

The size of such rallies praising the 68-year-old leader do not offer a clear sign of how much support he actually has. Throughout the uprising, which began February 15, witnesses in Tripoli have described the government using all methods to drum up crowds, including forcibly dragging people to them, while keeping anti-Gadhafi demonstrators off the streets.

From Fox:

RAS LANOUF, Libya -- Libyan warplanes launched airstrikes and forces loyal to leader Muammar Qaddafi engaged in fierce ground battles Sunday with a rebel force advancing west toward the capital Tripoli along the country's Mediterranean coastline.

The opposition fighters pushed out of the rebel-held eastern half of Libya late last week and have been cutting a path west toward Tripoli. On the way, they secured control of two important oil ports at Brega and Ras Lanouf. By Sunday, the rebels were advancing father west when they were hit by airstrikes and confrontations with ground forces.

Associated Press reporters at the scene said Qaddafi loyalists retook the town of Bin Jawad, about 110 miles east of Qaddafi's stronghold city of Sirte, which could prove to be a decisive battleground. The reporters witnessed airstrikes on the rebel forces and heavy fighting on the ground.

From Barack Obama:

"Hey, let's party."

Okay, okay, I made that last one up.  But it's correct in spirit.

It is clear that heavy fighting is going on, and that there are many, many casualties.  There are also refugees, said to be in the hundreds of thousands.

The issue for Americans is how long this can go on before we're pressured to intervene, simply on humanitarian grounds.  Obama has no stomach for that, but Obama's stomach is no guide to wise policy.  His public demand that Qaddafi step down was apparently issued to convince people that he has some spine, or some other anatomical credit, but it has placed the United States in an awkward position.  If the Libyan leader goes, fine.  But if he doesn't, Obama looks weak and ineffective...and not for the first time.  This bears repeating:  Earlier this week we quoted Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins quoting Lyndon Johnson, who'd said that if you tell a man to go to Hell, you'd better be prepared to send him there.  We see no coherent American policy in Libya, and Qaddafi has not yet left for Hell.

March 6, 2011      Permalink