FRIDAY,  OCTOBER 30,  2009

THE DETAILS START COMING - AT 5:20 P.M. ET:  Hat tip to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit for this:

It figures. The Pelosi Plan will punish states that limit trial lawyers’ winnings.
Capital Confidential reported this at Big Government:

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

Tort reform could save the country $54 billion.
So it only makes sense that democrats would oppose it.

COMMENT:  The nation is likely to be stunned when the details of this 2,000-page life-and-death bill start to come out.  And the American people will be justifiably furious at "journalists" who have not reported those details.

There's a reason why the bill is 2,000 pages, and it has nothing to do with getting X-rays.  One fundamental principle of leftist politics is to overwhelm the system - to paralyze it with paperwork, costs and dependents - in the hope of bringing it down and replacing it.  That's what you're seeing in action.

October 30, 2009     Permalink  

AND NOW, AS FRANK SANG IT, THE END IS NEAR - AT 4:38 P.M. ET:  In our relations with Iran, that is.  And Mr. Obama may finally be learning that he's not heading up a student government:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Frustrated by Iran's continued defiance of demands to come clean on its nuclear program, the Obama administration is leaning toward imposing new sanctions, even if it must act alone.

Administration officials acknowledged growing concern that there may not be international consensus to expand the existing U.N. sanctions, despite Tehran's apparent rejection of a confidence-building measure proposed by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog in hopes of making progress on the nuclear issue.

Wait.  Now wait.  Weren't we told that we were resetting our relations with Russia?  I guess that reset button was a factory reject.  And didn't we give up missile defense in Eastern Europe for better cooperation with Moscow?  I guess they didn't get the e-mail.  And isn't the world helping us because The One is in the White House?  I guess the world didn't get its instructions.

To that end, the administration is quietly supporting legislation in Congress that would give President Barack Obama a broad new array of authority to target Iran's energy sector by penalizing foreign firms that sell and ship refined petroleum products to Iran. The regime is heavily dependent on gasoline, kerosene and propane imports.

It is probably too late.  Iran is known to be laying plans to make up any shortfall.

The legislation would also allow the administration to go after insurance and reinsurance concerns that cover oil tankers and their cargo. And the U.S. could also target companies that provide Iran with covert technology used to crack down on protesters and democracy advocates as it did during demonstrations this summer after a disputed national election.

We saw the good that did.  As Johnny Carson used to ask, "Notice the difference?"

COMMENT:  The administration's policy with Iran is a shambles, made so by flashing weakness rather than strength.

And the question that really bothers the appeasement set:  How long will the Israelis wait before taking action, and ruining our day?

October 30, 2009    Permalink  

STUNNING...AND SICKENING - AT 4:25 P.M. ET:  One of the great fears expressed when President Obama was named this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner was that the prize would affect his conduct of American foreign policy.  Our fear, apparently, was justified.  From AFP:

Moscow and Washington want to reach a deal on a key nuclear disarmament treaty before US President Barack Obama receives his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, a Kremlin source was quoted as saying Friday.

The source, quoted in the Kommersant daily, said the Obama administration wanted to sign an agreement on replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before the Nobel ceremony and that Moscow was willing to oblige.

"On December 10 the ceremony for awarding Nobel laureates will take place... Our partners want the document to be signed before the Nobel Peace Prize is given to Barack Obama," the Kremlin source was quoted as saying.

"We are not against this," he added, according to Kommersant.

Russian and US negotiators have been discussing a new pact to replace START, a landmark 1991 treaty that led to deep cuts in the two countries' nuclear arsenals, before it expires on December 5.

A deal on START would mark a major foreign policy success for Obama and would boost his stated vision of a world free of atomic weapons.

By coincidence, the treaty's expiration date comes just five days before Obama is due to visit Oslo to accept his Nobel Peace Prize.

COMMENT:  What can one say?  Our safety is dependent on the conduct of our national-security policy.  Look who's conducting it.  And look at the values and ethics implied by this story.

October 30, 2009   Permalink

IF HELD TODAY - AT 10:06 A.M. ET:  Interesting results from a Fox poll, essentially rerunning the 2008 election.  Reported by Politics Daily:

Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election by 53 percent to 46 percent but when voters were asked how he would have done if they knew what they knew now that ratio changes to 48 percent to 41 percent, according to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted Oct. 27-28.

In other words, he would still win, but would not get a majority of the vote.  However, the opposition drops as well, indicating, as we have warned, that the Republican Party remains unpopular and cannot depend on Obama mistakes for its future.

That said, when asked how satisfied with what Obama has accomplished as president, 56 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied while 43 percent said they were somewhat or not satisfied.

When asked whether Obama is meeting or exceeding expectations, or falling below expectation, 40 percent said he is meeting them, 8 percent say he is exceeding them, 47 percent saying he is falling below expectations and 4 percent say it is too soon to tell.

There are some mixed results here, depending on what question is asked. 

Forty-four percent believe Obama is keeping promises he made during his campaign while 39 percent said he was breaking them, 8 percent said it was too soon to tell, 5 percent said he was keeping some and breaking others, and 4 percent were undecided.

But despite Obama's message of change during the campaign, 56 percent say what's going on in Washington is more of the same compared to 39 percent who believe there has been real change.

COMMENT:  Obama is showing political weakness.  The shine is gone.  But the White House political machine is effective and brutal, and Republicans still have not come up with a winning formula to turn the trends around.  As columnist Tony Blankley puts it, Republicans cannot vote "present" on the country's future.  Can anyone actually describe the GOP agenda? 

The 2010 midterms are critical.  A week is a lifetime in politics.  No one should be content simply because the current trends are going our way.

October 30, 2009    Permalink

FOUR DAYS TO GO - AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  This year's off-year elections are four days away.  Unless something really goes wrong, the GOP should win an easy victory in the Virginia governorship, now held by Tim Kaine, the Democratic national chairman.  (Ah, revenge is sweet.)

In New Jersey, the governorship is a tossup, thanks to a third-party candidate who's taking votes away from the Republican challenger to unpopular Governor Jon Corzine.  My guess:  Corzine will pull it out, with a bit of help from little ACORNS.  I hope I'm wrong.

In California, San Fran area, a Dem is the easy winner in a congressional race. 

In New York City, Mayor Mike Bloomberg should sail to a third term, meaning no Democrat will have been elected mayor in heavily Democratic New York in 20 years. 

But the juiciest race is in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, where an upstart conservative is challenging the GOP's establishment candidate, a woman who is slightly to the left of Leon Trotsky.  The election is being held to fill the seat vacated by a Republican congressman who resigned to become secretary of the army.

It now appears that the upstart, with endorsements from Sarah Palin, New York Governor George Pataki, and others, has a real shot, as Michael Barone reports:

The special election in the 23rd congressional district of New York increasingly looks like a two-man race, with the woman candidate, Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, skittering into third place. Yesterday I referenced Mark Blumenthal’s analysis of two polls, both commissioned by supporters of Conservative nominee Doug Hoffman, showing Hoffman ahead of Democratic nominee Bill Owens, with Scozzafava well behind. I agreed with Blumenthal’s conclusion that there was nothing indicating the polls were bogus, though polls in any special election, especially one with three candidates, need to be viewed with caution.

Now comes a third poll which tends to confirm those two, and this one was commissioned not by Hoffman supporters but by the pro-Democratic website Daily Kos; moreover, Kos himself endorsed Scozzafava. This one shows Owens leading Hoffman, but by the statistically insignificant margin of 33%-32%, with only 21% for Scozzafava. Averaging the three polls together, we get Hoffman 33%, Owens 30% and Scozzafava 18%. It sure looks like a two-man race to me.

COMMENT:  We'll be blogging through Tuesday night's returns, and will follow this closely.  It's unusual for any conservative in New York to create excitement, but if Hoffman wins he becomes an instant hot property.

October 30, 2009    Permalink

NOT ENTIRELY CONFIRMED, BUT INTRIGUING - AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Pakistani troops have made a fascinating discovery during a sweep:

SHERWANGAI, Pakistan — Pakistani soldiers battling their way into a Taliban stronghold along the Afghan border have seized passports that may be linked to 9/11 suspects, as they confront an enemy skilled in operating in a mountainous terrain with endless ways to wage a guerrilla war.

The military on Thursday took foreign and local journalists for a first look inside the largely lawless territory since it launched a ground offensive here in mid-October. The U.S.-backed operation is focused on a section of the tribal region where the Pakistani Taliban are based and are believed to shelter Al Qaeda.

Soldiers displayed passports seized in the operation, among them a German document belonging to a man named Said Bahaji. That matches the name of a man thought to have been a member of the Hamburg cell that conceived the 9/11 attacks. Bahaji is believed to have fled Germany shortly before the attacks in New York and Washington.

COMMENT:  We have to be cautious here, but the key question is whether this evidence was found in a Taliban or Al Qaeda stronghold.  We are being told by the smug set that they are separate, that we should be going after Al Qaeda rather than the Taliban, but the linkage between the two could easily be strong.  After all, the Tals gave Al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan.

This warrants much further inquiry, by the press and by our intelligence services.  The relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda clearly must play a role in our future strategy in the region, especially as the Taliban is threatening the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

October 30, 2009    Permalink

IRAN DESCENDING - AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  In all the hoopla over the health-care plan, which, of course, will ultimately save us and let us live forever, too many souls are forgetting the drama being played out with Iran. 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons change everything.  They change the way the world looks, and feels, and is.  Mr. Obama has chosen "engagement" with Iran, as if the leader of Iran were the coach of the visiting basketball team.  It isn't working out.  In an extraordinary statement, the EU this morning took a tough stand toward Tehran, tougher, alas, than the one offered by our president lite:

The European Union is urging Iran to stick by a deal that would limit its uranium enrichment.

EU leaders complained in a draft statement discussed at a summit Friday about "Iran's persistent failure to meet its international obligations."

Teheran is considering a plan proposed last week at talks involving Iran, the US, Russia and France.

But a Western diplomat in Vienna said Thursday that Teheran had rejected the plan, which calls for Iran to export most of its enriched uranium, offering instead to enrich it to a higher level inside the country under UN supervision.

In the statement, EU leaders also said they "deplore the continued violations of human rights in Iran" and urged Iran to release EU citizens and employees of European missions charged or held in Iran.

European diplomats and US officials were quoted by the New York Times on Thursday night as saying that Teheran had informed the UN of its decision, but had not provided a reason for backing out of the draft agreement formulated during a conference in Vienna last week.

However, the sources said that the Iranians had objected to the main component of the plan, which called for a large quantity of its uranium stockpile to be transferred to Russia, where it would be enriched into metal fuel rods before returning to the Islamic republic.

COMMENT:  All right, Mr. Obama, if you could take a few minutes out from the important work of playing basketball and golf, or going on another endless campaign trip, maybe you'd like to decide on our next step with Iran - that is, after you dispense with the pesky business of Afghanistan.

October 30,  2009    Permalink

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 29,  2009

AN ODD SARAH STORY - AT 10:42 P.M. ET:  There is a strange political story out of Iowa, and it involves Sarah Palin, who may be a candidate for president in 2012.  The Politico reports that Palin is asking a $100,000 speaking fee to give a speech in Iowa, and eyebrows are raised above heads:

A conservative Iowa group’s effort to lure Sarah Palin to its banquet next month has had an unintended effect: Rather than exciting conservatives about the prospect of a visit from the former Alaska governor, the group’s plan to raise a six-figure sum to bring her to the state has GOP activists recoiling at the thought of paying to land a politician's speaking appearance.

The Iowa Family Policy Center’s effort to cobble together $100,000 for Palin would represent a striking departure from customary practice in the first-in-the-nation state, these Republicans say, noting that a generation of White House hopefuls has paid their own way to boost their party and presidential ambitions.

That's correct.  And Sarah certainly can't be clueless about normal and accepted procedures.  It may well be that she won't be running in 2012, and simply sees this as another paid-for speaking engagement.  But if she even has a vague thought about higher office, she can't make running a business. 

Were Palin to appear in Iowa on November 21st, it would mark her first trip back to the state since she spoke to a handful of rallies there last fall as the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee. She would offer powerful counter-programming to another major political event that night: The Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner with Vice-President Joe Biden as the headliner.

Biden powerful?  Interesting?  Significant?  Fascinating?  None of the above.

But representatives from other Iowa-based political advocacy groups said they would never consider shelling out money for what many politicians see as a privilege: the opportunity to speak to a room full of sure-fire caucus-goers who often serve as precinct captains and can be instrumental to a presidential candidate’s success.

COMMENT:  They are correct.  Let's see what Palin does in the end.  She should lower her fee to expenses plus a token honorarium.  She's had some gaffes along the way.  Let's hope this isn't another one of them.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - OFFICIAL - BARACK OBAMA SENT FROM GOD - AT 10:05 P.M. ET:  Now we know, so let's stop the useless debate, shall we?  The ultimate authority has given us the ultimate theological judgment: 

NEW YORK (AP) - Sting isn't a religious man, but he says President Barack Obama might be a divine answer to the world's problems.

"In many ways, he's sent from God," he joked in an interview, "because the world's a mess."

Joked?  Doesn't sound much like a joke.

But Sting is serious in his belief that Obama is the best leader to navigate the world's problems. In an interview on Wednesday, the former Police frontman said that he spent some time with Obama and "found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world."

It would be nice if President Obama spent more time with General McChrystal.

"I can't think of any be better qualified because of his background, his education, particularly in regard to Islam," he said.

That last line should scare the hell of you.  Whoops.  Can't say "hell" in the presence of the deity.

Oh dear, look what it's come to.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

TO YOUR MARGINAL HEALTH - AT 7:55 P.M. ET:  Weighing in at 1,990 pages, the House health-care plan was presented to the American people today by Speaker Pelosi.  The weight of the document was offset by the fact that the plan provides full hernia and back-strain coverage.

An example of the literary artistry.  John Steinbeck, eat your heart out:

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.

The section deals with “incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements,” if that helps.

COMMENT:  We'll be discussing this at Urgent Agenda, but this introduction is only a first step.  There'll be a Senate version, and, assuming each version passes its house of Congress, there will be a House-Senate conference to resolve differences.  At 1,990 pages, there are likely to be plenty of differences. 

And the whole thing may collapse, which, given the recklessness with which it has been pursued, may be a good thing.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

NOT THE OBAMA STYLE - AT 7:42 P.M. ET:  It's 7:42 p.m.  Does President Obama know where his secretary of state is?

Apparently not.  In statements that mark a distinct contrast to the Obama style of love-thy-culture, Hillary Clinton directed some blunt charges at the Pakistani government, ostensibly an ally in the war on terror, er, man-made disasters:

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed doubt Thursday over Pakistan's failure to locate top al-Qaeda leaders in the eight years since they escaped over the border from Afghanistan, telling a group of Pakistani journalists that she found "it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to."

"So far as we know," Clinton said, "they're in Pakistan."

Clinton's comments, the most direct public statement of a U.S. argument long made in private, came as she tried to balance assurances of strong economic and military support for Pakistan with reminders that the relationship is a "two-way street."

"If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together," Clinton said, "then there are issues that not just the United States, but others have with your government and your military establishment."

COMMENT:  Well, there goes the commencement address invitation from the University of Karachi.  They'll probably get Jon Stewart instead.

Hillary, despite all her shortcomings (volumes one and two) is probably the best man in the Obama cabinet, and her blunt talk in Pakistan probably proves it.  The Pakistanis must get their act together, and become full partners with us.  It's in their own interest, unless they want to wake up one morning and find the Taliban in charge of their country.  And that would certainly end the girls' night out.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

IRAN UPDATE - AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  Late reporting from the excellent David E. Sanger of The New York Times confirms earlier fears that Iran is essentially rejecting the critical terms of the offer made by the "international community" in regard to its nuclear program:

WASHINGTON — Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Thursday that it would not accept, in its current form, a plan its negotiators agreed to last week to send the country’s stockpile of uranium out of the country, according to diplomats in Europe and American officials briefed on Iran’s response, potentially unwinding President Obama’s effort to buy time to resolve the nuclear standoff...

...European and American officials said that Iran refused to go along with the one feature of the draft agreement that could undermine Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. That provision would have required the country to give up custody, temporarily, of about three-quarters of its current known stockpile of low-enriched uranium, leaving it without enough to manufacture a weapon. American officials said they thought that would give them a year or so to seek a broader nuclear agreement with Iran, one that could address Iran’s continued enrichment of nuclear fuel.

A senior European official characterized the Iranian response as “basically a refusal.”

COMMENT:  It's at this point that severe sanctions should be dragged before the mullahs, but it won't happen.  Obama has chosen a policy of weakness and "engagement."  He'll probably opt for further "negotiations," giving Iran still more time to work on its weapon.

There are now widespread reports that the United States is already planning policies to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran.  Certainly makes us optimistic, doesn't it?  What a great message to send to Iran:  Hey, we're talking, but go ahead and build the thing.

October 29,  2009   Permalink

OBAMA STILL SLUGGISH IN RASMUSSEN POLL - AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve of the president and those who strongly disapprove, shows that Obama has been in minus double digits for 13 out of the last 14 days.

Today's numbers have 29% strongly approving and 40% strongly disapproving. 

Overall approval shows 47% approving, 52% disapproving.

With the health-care bill heading for a major fight over the public option, the president doesn't seem to have much good news on the horizon.  Unless he can pick up the crumbs offered by Iran and turn crumbs into loaves.  Look, when you're Divine, anything is possible.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  Hard to believe, yet delightful, but this analysis was just published in the reliably leftist British newspaper, the Independent.  It's hooked to next week's gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia:

If Republicans seize the governors' mansions in both states, the embarrassment will be acute. That is just what happened in both New Jersey and Virginia back in 1993 before the Republicans seized control of the US Congress the following year, dealing a crippling blow to the newly minted Democratic president of the time, Bill Clinton.

But even losing one of them next week will scratch the sheen of President Obama, who seems, one year on from his election, to be hovering in the view of most Americans between competent and fumbling, notwithstanding the high esteem in which he is still held abroad and, of course, in the minds of the Nobel committee.

What is certain is that the almost-mad expectations placed on Obama that unusually warm night in Chicago's Grant Park when he delivered his victory speech last November, have given way now to a general unease about his performance in office.

COMMENT:  I love the observation that the president is still held in "high esteem" abroad.  Well, maybe in the fashion-loving press offices, faculty rooms and cafes.  But I'll bet the foreign ministries are starting to sweat.  They whine about us, then crave our leadership.  Leadership is not what they're getting.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS...YOU KNOW WHERE - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  The economy apparently grew last quarter, but you have to look at the figures with three eyes and a microscope to get at the basic economic truth.  From The New York Times:

For the first time in a year, the United States economy grew, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. But even if a recovery is technically in the offing, job-seekers likely will not begin to feel the benefits for months to come.

Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the three months ending in September, a significant spike from a relatively shrunken base. The economy had contracted at annual rates of 0.7 percent and 6.4 percent in the first and second quarters of this year, respectively.

And now the details:

Robust government spending, exports, consumer durables — buoyed by auto purchases Congress’s now-expired “Cash for Clunkers” program — and housing helped finally push the measure into positive territory.

Yeah, let's look closely at that government spending, including cash-for-perfectly-good-vehicles.

Sure, it's good that the economy expanded.  But it's like adding a wing to a crumbling house:

...the poor job market is discouraging Americans from increasing their spending by too much. Consumer spending on nondurable goods like food and clothing, for example, increased just 2 percent in the third quarter of this year.

And likewise, stagnant consumer demand and withering consumer confidence have left companies wary of hiring more employees — or, for that matter, taking any expensive risks. The jobless rate reached 9.8 percent in September, its highest rate in 26 years. According to Thursday’s report, business investment in structures fell at an annual rate of 9 percent in the third quarter.

We are far from out of the woods, but the Obamans, while bankrupting the country, will advertise the latest growth figures, just in time for next Tuesday's elections.  Might make a difference in New Jersey.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

IS OBAMA BEING ROLLED?  AND THE ANSWER IS... - AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  In a clear-minded and well-timed piece in today's Washington Post, Robert Kagan asks the musical question.  The evidence is pretty clear, and we're in pretty deep:

Watching the Obama administration launch its "new era of engagement" over the past 10 months, most seasoned observers have pondered two questions: First, if engagement fails, will the Obama team ever acknowledge that it has failed? And what then?

And...

The first question is about to be answered. The main object of the "new era of engagement," Iran, has settled back into its old game-playing...

...Iran's intentions, it seems, are not good. Tehran apparently will not accept the deal but will propose an alternate plan, agreeing to ship smaller amounts of low-enriched uranium to Russia gradually over a year. Even if Iran carried out this plan as promised -- every month would be an adventure to see how much, if anything, Iran shipped -- the slow movement of small amounts of low-enriched uranium does not accomplish the original purpose, since Iran can quickly replace these amounts with new low-enriched uranium produced by its centrifuges.

The logical conclusion:

Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played. If Obama has any hope of getting anywhere with the mullahs, he needs to show them he means business, now, and immediately begin imposing new sanctions.

What about Russia?  We groveled to Moscow by canceling East German missile defense:

So now comes the test. Russia joined France, the United States and ElBaradei in agreeing to the proposal on Iran's low-enriched uranium. Iran is now rejecting that proposal. If the administration's engagement strategy is working, then Moscow should come through by joining in sanctions. If, on the other hand, Moscow declares that Iran's counterproposal is satisfactory, or calls for further weeks or months of negotiations, then we will know that Russia, too, is playing Obama.

The suggestions about Obama in this column are stark, and, I'm afraid, entirely accurate.

Many of us worry that, for Obama, engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end. We worry that every time Iran rejects one proposal, the president will simply resume negotiations on another proposal and that this will continue right up until the day Iran finally tests its first nuclear weapon, at which point the president will simply begin negotiations again to try to persuade Iran to put its nuclear genie back in the bottle.

And anyone who challenges the Obama strategy will be called 1) a warmonger, 2) a neo-con, 3) a pawn of the Israel lobby, and 4) a friend of Dick Cheney.

Finally:

The worst of it is that the Tehran regime is now desperately trying to buy time so it can regain full control of the country in the face of widespread anger after the fraudulent presidential elections in June and a still-vibrant Iranian opposition. For the clerics, an endless negotiating process is not merely a means of putting off any real concessions on its nuclear program. It is also, and more important, a way of putting off any Western sanctions that could produce new and potentially explosive unrest in their already unstable country. That is the best card in Obama's hand right now. It's time for him to play it -- or admit that poker is not his game.

COMMENT:  That says it, doesn't it?  Probably the most focused column I've read on this subject recently.  It's time for obama to stop campaigning for his office, and fill his office.

October 29, 2009   Permalink

IRAN RESPONDS - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Early reports are sketchy, but the government of Iran - the fighting mullahs - has handed over its much-anticipated answer to the West's demands on its nuclear program.  Despite some media attempts to spin the response as the beginning of peace on Earth and good will toward men, it appears that Iran is making demands that will make a deal all but meaningless:

Iran has presented its response on a United Nations-drafted nuclear fuel deal to the head of the International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran's state al Alam television reported on Thursday.

Iran will seek major revisions to the proposed deal, including shipping abroad its low-enriched uranium (LEU) in stages rather than all at once, according to another pro-government newspaper.

That pretty much kills it.  Shipping the stuff abroad in stages is just what weapons experts in the West fear.  It means that Iran, as we pointed out yesterday, can stretch things out, replace immediately any uranium that's shipped abroad, and keep its program running pretty much on schedule.

But the appeasement crowd may hail this as a "breakthrough, a first step."  It is actually, if reported correctly, a farce.

COMMENT:  After today, the ball will be in Obama's court.  In foreign affairs, he seems to be losing everywhere, with the left wing of his party opposed to anything that smacks of successful national defense.  The left will pressure him to accept anything Iran offers as a means of delaying any possible confrontation with the mullah regime.  Obama, given his instincts, may be tempted to take the deal as he contemplates a possible troop increase in Afghanistan and an upsurge of violence in Iraq.

And thus we have a brilliant new foreign policy.  Don't you feel safer?

October 29,  2009   Permalink