SATURDAY,  SEPTEMBER 5,  2009

ANOTHER OBAMA BLUNDER, OR DISGRACE, TAKE YOUR PICK - AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  The great Anne Bayefsky, whose reports from the UN put the mainstream media to shame, reports on a new Obama stunt that is bound to diminish us as a nation even further:

Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.

But...

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

Not on any specific countries?  Well, of course.  Each country has its own narrative.  One is as good as the other. 

This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states...It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

And...

The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Finally...

Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama’s no-names strategy for his September rollout.

Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality.

COMMENT:  The problem for us is that there are many who can't, or won't.  This kind of diplomatic approach is outrageous, and filled with danger.  It approximates the speech made by Secretary of State Dean Acheson in January of 1950, in which he left South Korea out of the American defense line.  Five months later, North Korea invaded South Korea, apparently expecting no American response.

The president is increasingly incompetent or deceitful, or both.  This UN session should sicken Americans.  But it will not sicken the "sophisticates" in the foreign-policy establishment, who'll think it's just fine.  And they have powerful allies in the media.

Sparks are coming.  We'll help provide them.

September 5, 2009   Permalink 

MORE ON JONES - AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  Van Jones, the president's embattled "green jobs" czar, is still on the payroll at this hour, despite multiple revelations that he is an leftist extremist with a history of very disturbing views - among them that 9-11 was an inside job, that President Bush spoke like a "crackhead," and now, we find in a new news report, the view that only white suburban kids commit Columbine-type massacres.  That last point might technically be true, but murder in the inner city is not exactly unknown. 

Jones has not resigned.  He should, to save the president embarrassment.  Indeed, the only reason I can think of for his not resigning is that he may have gotten private assurance from the White House that he's being kept on.  I suspect that his extremist views have no impact on an important segment of Obama's left-wing constituency or even parts of the Congressional Black Caucus.  That group's leader, after all, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, is a follower of Fidel Castro. 

Jones's presence will give renewed emphasis to the charge, made during the presidential campaign and ridiculed by the in-the-tank-for-The-One media, that Obama is himself sympathetic to the fringe left, and associated most of his life with some of its players.  Those charges seem fresh today, don't they?

September 5, 2009   Permalink

VIETNAM SEQUEL? - AT 12:06 P.M. ET:  Democrats in Congress are already balking at sending more troops to Afghanistan.  No matter how you feel about this, or any military strategy, what's building in the Democratic Party is another Vietnam scenario - cut off the aid, make any continuation impossible.    The White House, privately, may actually not be opposed to this.  The president could tell the nation that "my hands were tied."  From Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- Increasing congressional discord over the next U.S. steps in Afghanistan, coupled with a spike in violence there, is deepening the political divide on the war and how many troops are needed to fight it.

Key Senate Democrats signaled Friday that any push by the White House to send more troops to Afghanistan is likely to hit resistance. And their unease was fueled by another bombing, that left as many as 70 dead, including civilians who were killed when the U.S. blew up tanker trucks hijacked by the Taliban.

That deadly U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan Friday complicates the debate over the need for more U.S. troops, bolstering arguments that Afghan leaders must increasingly fend for themselves.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the United States must focus more on building Afghanistan's security forces. His cautionary stance was echoed by Sen. Jack Reed, who is also on the committee and spent two days in Afghanistan this week with Levin

COMMENT:  Things are not going well in Afghanistan, and Iraq is iffy.  We have an administration that, while it hasn't pulled out of either place, is not known for its resolve against enemies of the United States.  Resolve in Afghanistan, as an expert recently wrote at Urgent Agenda, would require a major, massive effort and a long-term commitment.  The American people, though, are tired of it all.

About Iraq:  It's not going to be an ally of the U.S.  It's a Muslim country, and I've never seen a Muslim country say "thank you" to anything Americans do.  While getting rid of Saddam Hussein has probably made the region better, and prevented the development of new WMD programs - very worthy goals - our long-term prospects in Iraq are not secure, by any means.

This president has a pile of international problems, and no real strategy.  This week he concentrates on saving his health-care "reform" plan, which he has botched to a very high standard of botching.

September 5, 2009    Permalink

CONGRESS TOO LIBERAL, SAY MOST AMERICANS:  Rasmussen reports that most Americans are ideologically detached from Congress:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters nationwide believe that Congress is too liberal while 22% hold the opposite view and say it is too conservative. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 14% say the ideological balance of Congress is about right and 12% are not sure.

Republicans overwhelmingly believe that Congress is too liberal, a view shared by 59% of those not affiliated with either major party.

A plurality of Democrats have a different view. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Democrats say Congress is too conservative, 19% too liberal, and 26% about right.

COMMENT:  The key figure here is the one for independents, 59% of whom think Congress is too liberal.  That gives some hope for the 2010 midterms, if Republicans run an effective campaign, by no means a sure thing.

September 5, 2009   Permalink

THE JONES LAD - AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  At last report, Van Jones, the self-declared Communist on the president's payroll, still had his job.  The controversy over this "green jobs czar" is building, as Fox reports:

The White House brushed aside mounting questions about controversial green jobs czar Van Jones on Friday, even as congressional Republicans demanded Jones's resignation and some prominent Democrats urged the president to fire the outspoken aide if he has not resigned before next week's Joint Session of Congress.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana became the first lawmaker to call for the resignation of President Obama's "green jobs" adviser over new revelations about his past affiliations and statements.

Pence said Obama should get rid of Van Jones, 40, if the adviser is unwilling to resign.

"His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate," Pence said in a written statement released Friday.

COMMENT:  The fact that Jones was hired in the first place, and survived the vetting process, is disgraceful enough.  He's just another version of Bill Ayers or the Rev. Wright.  The fact that he's still there is even more disgraceful.

If Jones is still on the payroll Tuesday, when Congress returns and gets ready for a presidential address before a joint session, Republicans should be in an uproar.  Make it a major issue.  Tie it to other, radical things this president has done.  This is not a "distraction."  It tells us what the real views of this crowd are. 

We still don't have anyone in place in charge of dispensing foreign aid because the Obama vetting process is so notoriously slow.  Even Hillary Clinton complained about that.  But Jones went right through.

September 5, 2009   Permalink

THE ADMISSION - AT 10:33 A.M. ET:  There is now an admission from a senior British official that money was indeed involved in the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber.  From Britain's Telegraph:

Jack Straw has reignited the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber by admitting for the first time that trade and oil were an essential part of the Government’s decision to include him in a prisoner transfer deal with Libya.

The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later.

The admission directly contradicts Gordon Brown's insistence only days ago that oil deals were not a factor in the prisoner's release.

And...

Documents published this week showed Mr Straw originally promised that a prisoner transfer agreement would only be reached with Libya if Megrahi was excluded. But he later caved in to Libyan demands to include Megrahi. It followed a warning from BP that a failure to include the bomber could hurt the oil giant’s business interests.

When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.

“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

COMMENT:  Let's see if the United States government has anything more to say about this sordid affair.  And let's have some commentators wonder out loud whether the British decision, deeply offensive to Americans, was made because the Brits knew that our soft, ineffective new president wouldn't complain too loudly.

September 5, 2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER 4,  2009

BREATHTAKING MEDIA ARROGANCE - AT 5:40 P.M. ET:  I still consider myself a member of the profession of journalism, but I'm often embarrassed to be part of it. 

Today, Secretary of Defense Gates properly reprimanded the Associated Press for its arrogant, self-righteous publication of a photo of a dying Marine, despite the specific request of the family that it not be published:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”

The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.

The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”

COMMENT:  The AP's response is absolute garbage.  When journalists start waving the flag, you know they're in trouble.

It is appropriate, under certain circumstances, to publish photos of casualties.  In World War II, Life Magazine published pictures of American dead on the beach at Buna, New Guinea, in 1943 - the first time such photos were published during that war.  However, you could not see the faces.  Privacy was maintained.

But here is a case where the family made a specific request that a picture not be published.  There is no issue here of "the people's right to know."  Americans understand that soldiers are killed in wars.  The AP should have respected the family's wishes, and should be reprimanded by public outrage over its decision.

There is common decency, as Secretary Gates said, or should be.  We await a rethinking by AP, and an apology.  Don't hold your breath.

September 4, 2009   Permalink

IRAN ACCUSES U.S. - AT 5:11 P.M. ET:  As a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program is building, Iran is accusing the United States of faking the whole thing.  From the AP:

Iran accused the US on Friday of using "forged documents" and relying on subterfuge to make its case that Teheran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, according to a confidential letter obtained by The Associated Press.

The eight-page letter, written by Iran's chief envoy to the UN nuclear agency in Vienna, denounces Washington's allegations against the Islamic Republic as "fabricated, baseless and false." The letter does not specify what documents Iran is alleging were forged.

It also lashes out at Britain and France for "ill will and political motivation" in their dealings on Iran.

Iranian envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh sent the letter to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose 35-nation board will take a hard new look at Iran's nuclear program next week.

COMMENT:  Iran is expected by Western nations to respond to demands, by the end of the month, that it seriously negotiate the future of its nuclear program.  The American public is not focused on this issue, but we'll be watching to see if the Obama administration can enforce its demands, or whether it will fritter away more time.

September 4, 2009   Permalink

MORE ENLIGHTENMENT FROM IRAN - AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  From The Times of London:

Iran is to recall a number of its ambassadors overseas who chose the wrong horse and gave their backing to "rioters" during the popular unrest which erupted after June's disputed election, it emerged today.

The semi-official Fars News Agency said that Tehran would be replacing 40 of its ambassadors, a clearout similar in scale to the one which followed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first election victory in 2005.

"Some of these people officially took positions during the recent riots in Iran in support of rioters," it said in a report. "It is supposed that the new ambassadors will be selected from committed experts loyal to the basis of the (1979 Islamic) revolution."

COMMENT:  Nothing to see here, folks, nothing to see.  Just a manifestation of cultural choice.  Who are we to have opinions about this?  Don't we respect other cultures?

Iran is slipping further and further into darkness.  Meanwhile, its government announced that it will not be bound by the September deadline given by President Obama to make progress on restraining its nuclear program.  Well, you know, we have other things to do. 

September 4, 2009   Permalink

ECONOMY - NO GOOD - AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  Despite all the hype from the White House, reality is catching up with the Obama administration:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since June 1983, as employers eliminated a net total of 216,000 jobs.

Analysts expect businesses will be reluctant to hire until they are convinced the economy is on a firm path to recovery. Many private economists, and the Federal Reserve, expect the unemployment rate to top 10 percent by the end of this year.

While the jobless rate rose more than expected, the number of job cuts is less than July's upwardly revised total of 276,000 and the lowest in a year, according to Labor Department data released Friday. Economists expected the unemployment rate to rise to 9.5 percent from July's 9.4 percent and job reductions to total 225,000.

COMMENT:  I always love it when the in-the-tank media assures us that the number of jobs lost this month is less than last month.  You know: "I'm glad to report, Captain Smith, that the Titanic sank less this hour than the first hour."

A jobless recovery is no recovery.  And fear of unemployment is holding people back from spending. 

Now the president must, after the release of these figures, go before Congress next week and propose a trillion-dollar medical plan.  Chris Matthews may be looking hard for that tingle up his leg.

September 4, 2009   Permalink

CIA FIGHTS BACK, ASKS FOR PROBE - AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  You know, I'm getting to like Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA.  He reminds me of the kind of Democrat we used to have, before the party was McGovernized.  Now he's striking back, as The Washington Times reports:

Besieged by leaks of several closely held secrets, the CIA has asked the Justice Department to examine what it regards as the criminal disclosure of a secret program to kill foreign terrorist leaders abroad, The Washington Times has learned.

Two U.S. intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the case, said the leak investigation involved a program that CIA Director Leon E. Panetta told Congress about in June and that surfaced in news reports just a month later.

The vice chairman of the the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence declined to discuss any possible leak investigations but told the Times on Thursday that a growing number of disclosures of highly secret programs, tactics and other information had caused "irreparable damage" to the U.S. intelligence community.

"They foil our attempts to carry out classified missions," Sen. Christopher S. Bond said in an interview. "They tell our intelligence community: We don't have your back; we're stabbing you in the back. Our allies ask us, 'How can we trust you to deal in classified matters in private, when the details are leaked to the press?'"

COMMENT:  I'm glad someone said that.  It can't be fun to be an ally of the United States, and see critical secrets printed in The New York Times.  It's time this cesspool, which has nothing to do with freedom of the press, was cleaned up.

Go Leon!

September 4, 2009   Permalink

CORRECT DECISION - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  You don't see much praise at this location for MSNBC, the nutty wing of NBC News, but the unit, under pressure, has made a correct decision:

Pat Buchanan has received a lot of criticism recently for his column marking the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, where the conservative pundit questions whether Hitler has gotten a bum rap.

By extension, MSNBC, where Buchanan is a commentator, has taken heat for promoting the column on its website. In the revisionist piece -- "Did Hitler Want War?" -- Buchanan argues that other countries, such as Poland, should be held responsible for the invasion, and later escalation of World War II. Hitler, he claims, wanted peace and wasn't out for world conquest...

...Well, now the network has pulled it.

COMMENT:  Buchanan is an extremist, period.  He always has been.  He is no longer a Republican, if he ever was.  He has fascist leanings.  He has quoted Holocaust deniers, was one of those responsible for the Republican Party's "southern strategy," which, we must freely admit, was based on racial hostility, has written anti-Semitic tirades, and doesn't much like his own country. 

Buchanan has the same freedom of the press as any of us, but that doesn't give him an automatic right to be employed by, or published by, MSNBC.  I cannot understand how any mainstream news organization, knowing his real views, can have him. 

Hundreds of thousands of American boys died fighting Hitler, including relatives of Urgent Agenda readers, and they weren't fighting an illusion.  While personable, Buchanan has always been an embarrassment, a man who blames World War II largely on Winston Churchill.  His leaving the Republican Party was one of the great moments in its history.  It is a tribute to the party, and its basic decency, that it turned its back on him.  Be gone with the man.

September 4, 2009   Permalink

NEW YORK TIMES HITS THE DEPTHS - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  By publishing an op-ed piece by GOP-hating Max Blumenthal, whose work is often found in such moderate, thoughtful publications as The Nation.  Like others on the left, Blumenthal has suddenly discovered the wit and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, a man regularly ridiculed by his comrades because he didn't have a speech pattern exactly like theirs.  Blumenthal's target - this man who writes for The Nation - is "extremism" within the Republican Party.  Naturally, he is hyping his latest book on the subject:

IN this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Say what?  What, precisely, is extremist about the concerns raised this summer by Republicans about the Democratic health plan?  Most Americans seem to share those concerns.

Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.

Oh, please.  The "industrial-military complex" comments have been taken completely out of context.  Eisenhower was actually speaking about the need for an industrial-military complex, but noted legitimate concerns about its power.  His main concern, it later turned out, was pressure on Congress that distorted defense contracting, hardly a headline.

...perhaps it was his experience as supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe that taught him that the rise of extreme movements and authoritarianism could take root anywhere — even in a democracy.

Where, precisely, is the "authoritarianism" in the GOP that this fashionable leftist is talking about?  Does the GOP have a fringe element?  Yes, of course.  Almost all parties do.  William F. Buckley fought against them and Ronald Reagan distanced himself from them.  But to suggest that people who came to town meetings to fight against federal takeover of health care are dabbling in authoritarianism is quite a stretch.

Now, consider this story:

President Obama's "green jobs" adviser could become a mounting liability for the Obama administration, as the latest revelation about Van Jones shows his apparent belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may have been an inside job.

Jones joined the "9/11 truther" movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for "deeper inquiry." It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

Jones has now "apologized," something he has never felt compelled to do in the five years since signing the nutbag statement.  And...

He also has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at "white polluters and the white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy.

A declared "communist" during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.

Jones' exceptional past is reminiscent of associations noted during the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama doggedly fended off claims that he was tied to radicals and overzealous activists.

Extremism?  Authoritarianism?  Look at your own side, Mr. Blumenthal.  Van Jones is still there.  So is Samantha Power.  So is a science adviser who once called for forced abortions. 

By the way, Eisenhower, in his "industrial-military complex" speech, also warned about the dangers of a federally funded science establishment, whose scientific research would be influenced by federal dollars.  Hmm.  Does the term "global warming" come to mind?

The extremist danger today comes heavily from the left.  The New York Times hasn't gotten around to telling us.

September 4, 2009   Permalink