MONDAY,  OCTOBER 5,  2009

GOP GAINS IN VIRGINIA GOV RACE - AT 10:21 P.M. ET:   There'll be two major governorships decided next month - Virginia and New Jersey.  In Virginia, the Republic candidate, Bob McDonnell appears to be pulling ahead.  Three late polls show McDonnell leading his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds, by five to eleven points.

New Jersey is tighter.  Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is intensely unpopular, but New Jersey is a Democratic state and Corzine's opponent, Chris Christie, is singularly unexciting.  Still, Christie is ahead by three or four points.  His lead continues to shrink, however, and the race is too close to call.  My hunch is that Corzine will pull it out.

A Republican win in Virginia, though, will be a jolt to the Democrats, who have been celebrating, prematurely it appears, Virginia's drift leftward in recent elections.

October 5, 2009   Permalink     

IT'S NOT ABOUT ME, AND I'M VERY SINCERE ABOUT MY FEELINGS ABOUT MYSELF - AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  The White House would love to forget last week's Olympic fiasco in Copenhagen, but George Will reminds us that both Obamas gave speeches to try to bring the games home.  Those speeches were revealing:

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds -- unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.

Ouch.  But Will has done his homework.  The Obama self-love is remarkable.

The president told the Olympic committee that: "At this defining moment," a moment "when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations" in "this ever-shrinking world," he aspires to "forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world."

Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared "defining" -- declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it.

But enough of philosophy:

But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:

"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather, . . ."

Yuch.  Such phony modesty.  Of course he thinks it was about him, and him, and maybe a little about Michelle.  But mostly him, or maybe Him.

Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."

COMMENT:  A great column, well presented.  But there is danger for the president here.  If a president loses favor because of his policies, those policies can be adjusted.  But if a president becomes personally disliked, the damage is likely permanent.  And that, I believe, is what's happening with Barack Obama.  It is his character that is under scrutiny, his vanity and his conceit.  If he can't shake this, it'll be one-term Barack.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

THE ASSAULT ON McCHRYSTAL - AT 5:54 P.M. ET: The Washington campaign against our Afghanistan commander, General Stanley McChrystal, escalated today with a thinly veiled slap by the secretary of defense, as The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to subtly rebuke America’s top commander in Afghanistan on Monday for publicly speaking out against calls for scaling back the war effort there.

“I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Mr. Gates said at a gathering here.

“And in this process,” Mr. Gates went on, “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

COMMENT:  Please note that no one has publicly rebuked those from the White House who leaked disparaging comments about McChrystal last week. 

Gates's comments come a day after National Security Advisor James Jones made similar remarks.  Together with the disparaging leaks about General McChrystal, they have eroded the general's authority, and must be having a devastating effect on troop morale.

There was also an article by leftist Yale Law School Professor Bruce Ackerman, accusing McChrystal of stepping over a Constitutional line.  One had the sense - and I stress that this is my own speculation - that the article was generated by the Obamans.

The administration's behavior is disgraceful.  Frankly, McChrystal should consider resigning, and saving himself from the humiliation dished out by this regime.  He is being set up to be scapegoated, and should realize it.  I suspect the White House fears he will resign, and is trying to diminish his reputation beforehand.

Despite sloppy journalistic comparisons, McChrystal's public defense of his known positions comes nowhere near the behavior of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's antics during the Korean War, which got MacArthur fired.  MacArthur was sending letters to Speaker of the House Joe Martin, dissenting from President Truman's military policies.  The general's insubordination was clear, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff backed his being relieved of his command.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

OH, NOT AGAIN - AT 5:27 P.M. ET:  In another act of supreme courage, the Obama administration has knuckled under to the international thugocracy.  Our Iranian activist friend, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, refers us to the latest prank, which once again is best reported in a British paper, The Telegraph:

President Barack Obama has refused to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington this week in a move to curry favour with the Chinese.

The decision came after China stepped up a campaign urging nations to shun the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It means Mr Obama will become the first president not to welcome the Nobel peace prize winner to the White House since the Dalai Lama began visiting Washington in 1991.

The Buddhist monk arrived in Washington on Monday for a week of meetings with Congressional leaders, celebrity supporters and interest groups, but the president will not see him until after he has made his first visit to China next month.

COMMENT:  It is embarrassing.  It is just embarrassing.  Look what's becoming of our country under this dictator-appeasing administration.  George W. Bush may not have been Mr. Smoothie, but at least the man had some character.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

AHEAD OF THE POLS - AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  The American people seem to be ahead of the politicians, or at least the White House politicians, on Iran.  As David Paul Kuhn writes in Real Clear Politics...

There was a startling poll on Iran last week. Many top Iranian analysts have long believed Tehran's nuclear ambitions will, more likely than not, lead to a military confrontation. What's new, Americans now agree. Cynicism is taking hold.

Americans were asked in a Fox News poll whether: "Iran can be stopped from working on a nuclear weapons program without the use of military force, or will the U.S. eventually need to take military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?"

Six in 10 Americans believe "military action will be necessary." They were not stating this view as passive observers. The same portion of Americans said they "support" the U.S. taking military action to "keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons." A majority of Independents, Democrats and Republicans came to both stark conclusions. This was one poll. But it indicates Iran cannot count on American war fatigue.

Americans are on top of the issue.  But there was a disturbing finding as well:

...not even half of the public is worried about an impending terrorist attack or a U.S. swine flu epidemic.

COMMENT:  The public is growing lax in the war on terror because of poor leadership.  The president does not project a sense of urgency.  Even the arrests of recent weeks have not woken us up.

Fortunately, enough responsible journalists have been warning about Iran, which probably accounts for the heightened public attitude.  We now have to get our groove back in the war on terror.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

THE SPIN MACHINE RUNS OUT OF POWER - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  After a weekend of spin regarding the great, colossal, overwhelming, beyond-all-expectations success of our first "engagement" with Iran last Thursday, the truth comes out, published in an Arab newspaper:

TEHRAN - There has been no change in the Iranian nuclear stance and the issue was not raised in the Geneva talks with the world powers, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said on Monday.

“We have not raised anything about our right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology in the Geneva talks,” the spokesman said.

Ghashghavi said the Geneva meeting addressed Tehran’s proposal dealing with general global issues, but not the Iranian nuclear programme.

The spokesman said agreements reached on inspecting the new uranium enrichment plant south of Tehran on October 25, and a meeting in Vienna on October 19 on enriched uranium exchange were coordinated solely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran has painted the results of the Geneva talks and the visit by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to Tehran as Western acknowledgement of its right to pursue civil nuclear technology, including enrichment.

COMMENT:  That's the point.  We got nothing on Thursday.  Iranian concessions were somewhat like the executioner allowing you to live a few minutes longer. 

Churchill described appeasement as feeding the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.  We are feeding the alligator.  And the alligator will eat us slowly, nibble by nibble, while those who gave us up will get honorary degrees from Harvard.

October 5, 2009   Permalink 

THE WAR OF NECESSITY - AT 8:48 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone punctures the hypocrisy of a president who, oh, five minutes ago, described Afghanistan as a war of necessity.  Now, when he actually has to make a decision, the necessity turns into...well...a maybe:

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Ah yes, as Maurice Chevalier sang it, I remember it well.

But that was nearly seven weeks ago. Now it appears that Obama is about to ignore the advice of Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom he installed as commander in Afghanistan in May, after relieving his predecessor ahead of schedule.

To govern, in this administration, is to fudge.

During the first three weeks of September, Obama held one meeting on the "war of necessity." Then on Sept. 20, Obama appeared on five talk shows to push his health plan.

Nothing like a great set of priorities.

According to The Washington Post, "senior advisers" challenged some of McChrystal's key assumptions. "One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, 'A lot of assumptions -- and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions -- were exposed to the light of day.' " Sounds just a bit condescending, doesn't it?

These people have no respect for military officers.  I heard some forgettable Democratic "expert" in national security say a few days ago on TV that suggestions about a possible blockade of Iran do not deserve replies.  The attitude of this crowd is that anyone who disagrees with them is too stupid to be taken seriously.

Among the assumptions, wrote the Post reporters, is "that the return to power of the Taliban would automatically mean a new sanctuary for al Qaeda." That's the same assumption Obama made in his speech to the VFW 44 days before.

Throw the speechwriter under the bus.

Declaring Afghanistan a "war of necessity" was a way for Obama and other Democrats to attack George W. Bush for choosing, in their view unwisely, to wage war in Iraq. But now when it comes time to wage the "war of necessity" in the way that our carefully selected general recommends, it turns out not to be so necessary any more. Not when Democratic politicians and Democratic voters are shying away from it.

Is there hope for a correct decision?

Maybe Obama will choose to wage his "war of necessity" in the way the general he selected believes is necessary for us to succeed.

But I wouldn't bet heavily on it -- not any more, in fact, than I would have bet on Chicago's chances of hosting the 2016 Olympic games.

Other nations are watching.  They are laughing.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Why not start the week with another outrage committed by the Obamans, in their desire to "engage" the world?  If this "engagement" goes much further, we'll be signing a surrender document on someone else's battleship Missouri.

The great Anne Bayefsky, distinguished teacher, outstanding UN reporter, and mother of a newly named Rhodes scholar, exposes a disgraceful maneuver by the United States that should embarrass every one of us.  From the Weekly Standard:

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.

Thrilled already?

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008...various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."

The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs.

That's enough.  Read the piece.  It is pathetic.  We threw Canada under the bus, just as we've betrayed just about every other ally.  The reason, of course, is that Obama, a severe leftist, does not consider countries like Canada as allies, but merely as inconvenient other nations.  He seems to feel a greater affinity for the Islamic countries, democratic or not.

Five or six years ago I was speaking with a distinguished civil liberties lawyer, one of the few genuine articles remaining, who worried that we would lose our freedoms because of what was happening on college campuses - speech codes, intimidation of anyone who dissented from the multicultural party line, fear of being graded down by partisan professors.  The Obama administration is filled with people whose main influence has been the American college campus.  I'm afraid we're seeing the result.

Anne's reported that "other Western governments were taken aback" is instructive.  They may whine in public about "American power," but privately they know that it protects them and their civilization.  Now they see that power either eroded, or turned against the fundamental principles of the West.  And they're starting to get scared.

October 5, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  OCTOBER 4,  2009

APPALLING - AT 10:41 P.M. ET:  We continue to follow, with increasing dismay, the remarkable campaign being waged by people in the Obama regime against General Stanley McChrystal, our commander in Afghanistan.  The Telegraph of London has the best report on this.  It doesn't matter whether one agrees or disagrees with McChrystal's views.  The fact is that the commander in chief has been out to lunch, and dinner, and snacks, while American men have been dying.  We get the feeling that McChrystal, hand picked by the Obama White House, is being set up to be scapegoated.  Given the great practice that Obama has in throwing people under the bus, we won't be surprised.  From The Telegraph:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

Oh really?  I heard it.  It wasn't blunt at all.  He was, as we've reported, stating what already was known about his views. 

An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

I wasn't aware that Washington hardball was what Stanley McChrystal is about.  I'd thought he was one of the nation's leading experts in counterinsurgency.  I guess when you learn your politics in Chicago, where the election of the city clerk is more important than the election of the president of the United States, there might be some confusion as to what's important.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: "They still have a working relationship but all in all it's not great for now."

And, of course, to this touchy-feely crowd in the White House, "relationship" is what it's all about.  Great leaders can get along with tough-minded subordinates, and even welcome them if they're good.  Not-so-great leaders can't.  Obama can't. 

As a divide opened up between the military and the White House, senior military figures began criticising the White House for failing to tackle the issue more quickly.

They made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban. 

Obama has certainly won the respect of the military, hasn't he?

Obviously, we have civilian control of the military, and military men aren't always right.  Lincoln went through a bunch of generals before getting to Grant.  Truman fired MacArthur.  But both Lincoln and Truman devoted themselves to national defense.  Obama seems to see it as a sideshow.

The administration is also being led around by Iran, which made some tiny concessions on its nuclear program, letting the usual appeasers announce a new day in our relationships with the mullah/thugs.  There is no such day.  Itan hasn't conceded anything significant, and won't.

The leaked comments on McChrystal seemed rougher than the comments about Iran, which should tell you something about the mentality of this new White House crowd.

October 4, 2009   Permalink

LIVING THE ILLUSION - AT 8:21 P.M. ET: Just thought you'd like to see the extent of the nutbaggery being published in Chicago to explain away the loss of the 2016 Olympic games.  The usual suspects are involved.  From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Some Chicago officials say anti-American resentment likely played a role in Chicago's Olympic bid dying in the first round Friday.

President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment against America that President Bush and others built up for years, they said.

"There must be" resentment against America," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in Daley Center Plaza. "The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The world now feels better about America and about Americans. That's why I thought the president's going was the deal-maker."

Jackson is just disappointed that he didn't get to give his speech on TV. 

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she was approached by a consul general at the plaza as they waited for word Friday. "He said ... he was hearing that there wasn't enough time for Barack Obama to dispel the old image. ... But I don't know if that's it."

Now, a question:  Let us accept for a moment that there wasn't enough time for Barack Obama (blessed be his name) to reverse the enormity of the damage done by BUSH (!!).  So, tell me, how long will it take?  Another year?  Five years?  In other words, when will this crowd stop blaming President Bush for Obama's failures?  The answer is...never.  It's the game they play, the excuse game, and they're expert at it. 

Their motto is not "E pluribus unum."  Theirs is, "It's someone else's fault."  And they fly it from every flagpole in front of every failed school in Chicago.

October 4, 2009   Permalink

NOT GOOD, NOT INSPIRING - AT 6:26 P.M. ET:  President Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine General James Jones, seemed to needle General Stanley McChrystal, our commander in Afghanistan, today:

Addressing Gen. Stanley McChrystal's public call for more troops in Afghanistan, White House national security adviser James L. Jones said that advice to the president should come though the military chain of command rather than by open campaigning for a strategic decision.

"Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command and I think that General McChrystal and the others in the chain of command will present the president with not just one option, which does, in fact, tend to have a ... enforcing function, but a range of options that the president can consider," Jones said.

COMMENT:  As they say in diplomacy, this is not helpful.  Putting down your theater commander damages morale, unless you intend to fire him.  McChrystal did nothing wrong.  He reiterated in public what everyone knows is his point of view, and he did it in an appropriate setting.

There were also leaks from the White House earlier in the week disparaging the advice McChrystal is giving.  I don't know whether that advice is right or not, but the leaks are unseemly and divisive.  This administration doesn't do war very well, or anything else for that matter.  Hmm.  It does do going out for dinner quite well.  We'll grant that.

October 4, 2009   Permalink

BRITS GETTING IT RIGHT - AT 10:36 A.M. ET:  We like to rib Great Britain here for the political correctness that has infected British society, but, as we've also said, the British press has been remarkably astute in knocking the air out of Obama's inflated sails.  Also, there are elements in the British military that still carry on the tradition of the Britain we love.  Here, a Brit general gives blunt advice on Afghanistan that breaks through the leftist blather:

The head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards, has issued a wake-up call to the public by warning of the "terrifying prospect" of a defeat in Afghanistan.

In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by NATO would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.

In his first interview as the head of the Army, Sir David told The Sunday Telegraph that if Britain and NATO failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be "enormous" and "unimaginable".

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

COMMENT:  We wouldn't have outspoken interventions like this if military men respected President Obama's commitment to the war on terror, but they don't.  And for good reason. 

October 4, 2009   Permalink

NOW WE KNOW - AT 10:16 A.M. ET:  It's a balancing act.  On the one hand, we have civilian control over the military.  On the other, Americans have a right to know, within security bounds, what advice the military gave civilian leaders, so we don't have scapegoating if things go wrong.  The advice on Afghanistan is being given loud and clear:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – By openly declaring their views on the Afghan war, US military leaders have placed President Barack Obama in a bind as he faces a fraught decision over the troubled US-led mission.

Obama has refused to quickly approve a request from his commanders for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan, insisting first on a full vetting of the current strategy.

But while a war council takes place behind closed doors at the White House, top military officers have made no secret of their view that without a vast ground force, the Afghan mission could end in failure.

"They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong," Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense, told AFP.

COMMENT:  As usual, left-wing commentators are bringing Vietnam into the picture, likening the military's request for more troops to the gradual escalation in Vietnam.  The two, though, are not comparable.  We were not attacked by Vietnam, but were attacked by elements protected within Afghanistan.  Also, the change of command in Vietnam from William Westmoreland to Creighton Abrams was producing important results in the late sixties, results largely ignored by journalists and historians who are locked into a fashionable "narrative."

Further, one reason for action in Afghanistan is to try to save Pakistan, a nuclear-equipped state.  If Pakistan should go unstable, and nuclear weapons compromised, our world would be very different, and even The One couldn't save it.

Finally, this is 2009, not 1964.  Almost a half century has passed.  We've learned a great deal since then about counterinsurgency.

October 4, 2009   Permalink

YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN TROUBLE WHEN... - AT 10:06 A.M. ET: That was a great Johnny Carson line.  Ah yes, I remember it well.  And it's a message for President Obama, whose immunity from ridicule is weakening.  Witness this, last night, at Saturday Night Live, via HotAirPundit:

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/snl-unloads-on-obama-for-not.html

Watch and laugh.  Our time is coming.

October 4, 2009   Permalink

PURE GARBAGE - AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  The outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has done his usual fronting for Iran in a story getting major attention this morning:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday there is a ''shifting of gears'' in Iran's confrontation with the West to more cooperation and transparency and he announced that international inspectors would visit Tehran's newly revealed uranium enrichment site on Oct. 25.

This is complete garbage.  Iran got caught red-handed trying to conceal a new nuclear plant, and is offering "inspections" long before the plant actually opens.  It has also made plain that it has no intention of giving up its advanced nuclear program.  This outgoing UN official is a Muslim who has consistently fronted for Iran.  His statement comes a day after it was learned that his own organization has been suppressing an analysis that Iran now has the full knowledge to build a nuclear bomb.

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a joint news conference in Tehran with Iran's top nuclear official, said his agency ''has no concrete proof of an ongoing weapons program in Iran.'' But the IAEA has ''concerns about Iran's future intentions,'' he said.

No proof.  I guess Iran acquired all that knowledge on bomb making just to produce energy to recharge iPods.

''I see that we are at a critical moment. I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and cooperation,'' said ElBaradei.

What a fraud.  And this man won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yet, his words will now be used by the appeasement crowd in Washington to support Obama's failed policies.

October 4,  2009   Permalink