MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 14,  2009

A VICTORY - AT 9:32 P.M. ET:  Sometimes there are sweet moments:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Monday to block the Housing and Urban Development Department from giving grants to ACORN, a community organization under fire in several voter-registration fraud cases.

The 83-7 vote would deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

The action came as the group is suffering from bad publicity after a duo of conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp released hidden-camera videos in which ACORN employees in Baltimore gave advice on house-buying and how to account on tax forms for the woman's income. Two other videos, aired frequently on media outlets such as the Fox News Channel, depict similar situations in ACORN offices in Brooklyn and Washington, D.C.

COMMENT:  Translated into plain English, the two "conservative activists" did the work that so-called "journalists" should have done.  It is a good guide to the future.  More and more, the best journalism may well be done outside the old-time media. 

Note that 83-7 vote.  I'll check out who the unlucky seven are.  I have my suspicions. 

September 14, 2009   Permalink

THE OBAMA DECEPTION - AT 7:17 P.M. ET:   Charles Krauthammer, speaking on Fox tonight, was right when he said that President Obama doesn't lie, he deceives.  Last night on "60 Minutes," a proud division of the Obama White House, he showed just how that deception works, when he discussed tort reform, which most sane people would regard as a critical component of overall health-care reform:

Mr. Obama on Sunday clarified that he is so far not willing to consider capping malpractice judgments, a reform proposal consistently put forward by Republicans.

It is the size of judgments, many outlandish by any standard, that drives the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians through the roof.  But those judgments also fuel the trial bar, which is one of the main financial supporters of the Democratic Party.  The president says he wants to bring the cost of health care down, but will not support one of the changes that will surely help. 

Obviously, trial lawyers perform critical and often noble work in this society.  But medical malpractice is an area that has been outrageously manipulated by the likes of John Edwards and his crowd. 

"Many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care," the president said last Wednesday to a joint session of Congress. "Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs."

COMMENT:  Did he really have to talk to "enough doctors" to know that?  Every patient knows it.

And the president leaves out one of the most scandalous aspects of the medical malpractice industry - the use of junk science to win cases.  Of course, this administration has embraced a bit of junk science in the global warming issue, so maybe Mr. Obama doesn't see it as a big problem.  But it is. 

More change we can't believe in.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

TRAGEDY IN YEMEN - AT 6:06 P.M. ET:  This is a stark example of why "multiculturalism," as it's current practiced on the left wing of our universities and intellectual elites, is such a fraud:

AMMAN, Jordan (CNN) -- A 12-year-old Yemeni girl, who was forced into marriage, died during a painful childbirth that also killed her baby, a children's rights group said Monday.

Fawziya Ammodi struggled for three days in labor, before dying of severe bleeding at a hospital on Friday, said the Seyaj Organization for the Protection of Children.

"Although the cause of her death was lack of medical care, the real case was the lack of education in Yemen and the fact that child marriages keep happening," said Seyaj President Ahmed al-Qureshi.

Born into an impoverished family in Hodeidah, Fawziya was forced to drop out of school and married off to a 24-year-old man last year, al-Qureshi said.

Child brides are commonplace in Yemen, especially in the Red Sea Coast where tribal customs hold sway. Hodeidah is the fourth largest city in Yemen and an important port.

COMMENT:  Where are the international "women's" groups?  Where are the trendy "feminist" organizations?  They are silent because, in the precincts of the left, there is a definite pecking order.  Women's rights, and certainly children's rights, are pretty far down the list.  At the top are anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and race.  Sadly, many "feminist" organizations are, today, simply satellites of the political left, and follow the rules.

When a woman murdered by police on the streets of Tehran became a symbol of Iranian resistance recently, there was a similar silence by organizations claiming to speak for women.  It is a disgrace.  Many women's rights advocates are probably too intimidated to speak out.  But one exception is distinguished feminist writer Phyllis Chesler, who has essentially been expelled from the feminist movement.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

MIRACLE IN NORWAY? - AT 5:35 P.M. ET:  We can dream, can't we?  From AP:

OSLO | Siv Jensen has an unusual ambition for a nation famous for its cradle-to-grave welfare system: She wants to go down in history as Norway's Margaret Thatcher.

And polls leading up to Monday's national election in this oil-rich Nordic state of 4.8 million people show the leader of the right-wing Progress Party may have a shot at pursuing her dream of applying a free-market overhaul to a society often called a socialist paradise.

The Progress Party is locked in a tight duel with Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg's left-leaning Labor Party, Norway's dominant political force since World War II.

COMMENT:  As Sinatra liked to put it, leave us we should pray.  One of the keys to breaking the power of the left in Western nations is to have changes of government in Norway and Sweden, who are looked to as the models.  If the models decide to change their models, it would be a great boost to free-market forces.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

TERROR RAID - AT 4:14 P.M. ET:  Something is brewing in the terror business in New York.  From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Law enforcement agents raided residences in New York City on Monday as part of a terrorism investigation, and began briefing Congress about the probe.

New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne confirmed that searches were conducted in the borough of Queens by agents of a joint terrorism task force. He would not discuss the matter further.

Separately, federal authorities started briefing a series of senior lawmakers in Congress about the case.

Two U.S. intelligence officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly, said the target of any purported attack, or who would carry it out, remained unclear.

Authorities have not found any weapons ready for use, such as a bomb, that would indicate an attack was imminent, they said. Nevertheless, one of the officials called the threat very real and emphasized the urgency of the threat.

COMMENT:  The fact that Congress is being briefed immediately would suggest that this is a serious situation. 

Let us hope that the first instinct of the Justice Department will not be to indict the law enforcement agents because one of them looked at a suspect in a culturally insensitive manner.

That may be a faint hope.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

THE USUAL SUSPECT - AT 11:47 A.M. ET:  The Politico reports this morning that some of President Obama's allies are starting to suggest that race is the motivating force behind much of his political opposition:

AUSTIN – Eight months into Barack Obama’s presidency, as criticism of his administration seems to reach new levels of volume and intensity each week, the whispers among some of his allies are growing louder: That those who loathe the nation’s first African-American president, and especially those who would deny his citizenship, are driven at least in part by racism.

Look, there are no doubt some racists out there.  But the whole premise is wrong.  By definition, as you look at the poll numbers, Obama is losing support among those who previously supported him.  Are they racists?  If they're racists, why did they support him in the first place? 

True, the mass demonstrations consist mostly of those who have always opposed Obama, but what's remarkable is how little racism we see.  Opposition, except among a fringe, seems based on the president's policies, and policies similar to these were rejected by Mr. Obama's opponents long before he was on the scene. 

“As far as African-Americans are concerned, we think most of it is,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), when asked in an interview in between sessions how much of the more extreme anger at Obama is based upon his race. “And we think it’s very unfortunate. We as African-American people of course are very sensitive to it.”

Johnson is a somewhat-reserved, nine-term member of Congress, more gracious southern lady than racial bomb-thrower.

Wrong.  Johnson is very much a bomb thrower.  When she was head of the Congressional Black Caucus, and major-league whack job Cynthia McKinney was defeated for reelection to Congress, it was Johnson who suggested that McKinney's opponents had no legitimate right to campaign against her.  She is a racialist.

“It’s hurting the spirit of this country,” Johnson said, citing concerns about what the rest of the world may think about a powerful nation where a significant segment of the population does not accept their elected leader as legitimate.

I wonder if Johnson thought this way when a major segment of her party refused to accept the legitimacy of George Bush's election.  I wonder why the reporter didn't ask.

Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) about the race factor: “There are some issues that have been swept under the rug and we’re not witnessing them come out.”

This reporter certainly gets interviews with impartial observers.  Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against military action after 9-11, is an outspoken supporter of Fidel Castro. 

Of course we should be sensitive to legitimate concerns about racism, and we should also be understanding about the apprehensions of African-Americans.  But these charges just don't hold water.  The president has made mistakes.  He's pursued policies that don't have wide popular backing.  He often appears detached, and at times aloof.  His campaign style doesn't play well in the White House.  Those are the reasons he's lost support.  The racists have always opposed him.  He hasn't lost support among them because he never had any.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

THE BOUNCE CONTINUES - AT 9:33 A.M. ET:  The president continues to gain in the polls following his speech to Congress last week and his all-out campaign on health care.  While bounces generally dissipate over time - which is why they're called bounces - the fact that Obama could turn things around quickly indicates that he is still a potent political force.  That political skill could be turned on at election time, and it can have its impact.  The presidency is still the center of action.

Rasmussen reports this morning that overall approval for Obama stands at 52%, with disapproval at 48%.  Contrast this to the Rasmussen report of September 1st, showing approval at 45% and disapproval at 53%.  The president has gone up seven points in approval and down five points in disapproval.  That is a dramatic change in his favor.

Just as important, passions against the president have receded, at least according to Rasmussen.  Ras's presidential approval index, measuring the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, stands at minus three this morning, 34% to 37%.  That number was minus 14 on August 23rd.

If the president makes reasonable compromises on health care, and keeps the left wing of his party in line, he can retain some of this momentum, and maybe even expand on it.  His improving numbers could also help quell some of the small, but noticeable skepticism he's faced on the part of the more professional parts of the media.

For those on our side, the battle against the Age of Obama is far from won. 

September 14, 2009   Permalink

MORE FRUITS OF OBAMA'S "RESET" WITH RUSSIA - AT 9:09 A.M. ET:  We are amazed, constantly amazed, at the breathtaking success of the Obama foreign policy.  Why, just to watch how nations fall before The One's charm, his power of persuasion.  Chalk up another one today:

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said the South American country plans to develop a nuclear energy program with Russia and doesn’t want to build an atomic bomb.

Chavez said that the country’s oil and gas reserves won’t last forever and the government will seek alternative energy sources. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin agreed to help Venezuela’s nuclear energy program during a meeting in Moscow last week, Chavez said.

“We’re not going to make an atomic bomb, so don’t bother us like with Iran,” he said on state television. “We’re going to develop nuclear energy with peaceful purposes.”

COMMENT:  Yeah, right.  No interest in nuclear weapons.  Could I interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn? 

The key story here is Russia and its recklessness.  Putin is clearly still in charge, no matter what the title on his business card says.  He's former KGB, and acts the part.  Selling nuclear material to Chavez is like selling matches to an arsonist. 

And, of course, the other story is America's weakness.  No American president - well, except possibly the current one - could want to see Venezuela as a nuclear power.  But we have no leverage over Russia, and the Russians do not fear us.  They see Obama's lack of spine, his willingness to negotiate over everything, even with people who announce in advance that they have no intention of negotiating seriously.

And what is our main concern in Latin America today?  Why, it's restoring to the presidency of Honduras a Chavez and Castro ally who was removed by Constitutional means. 

This country may start yearning for the return of George Bush.

September 14,  2009   Permalink

THE ANNIVERSARY - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Today marks the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, known as "the day the bonuses stopped...for five minutes."  The collapse set off last year's financial panic, and essentially guaranteed the election of financial wizard and deeply experienced economic planner Barack Obama.

A year later the real economy, where people work honest jobs, is still in serious trouble, with unemployment expected to rise even further.  But Wall Street is doing just fine, with the Dow at exactly the same place it was the day before the Lehman fiasco.  Multimillion-dollar bonuses for work no one understands are back in style. 

Some had hoped that last year's bloodletting would lead to caution, reform and wisdom.  We don't make predictions here, but we do offer some assessments.  Throughout this last year we've been cautioning that hope for reform was absurd.  The culture of Wall Street, and the psychology of the personalities involved, all but preclude caution and responsibility.  Wall Street is not about the "free enterprise system," or building great companies.  Wall Street is about fast money.  As Felix Rohatyn, once of the Street's true statesmen, once said, the stock market is a casino.

Now, one year after the collapse, there are warnings all over the place that we can have another one.  CNBC's Charles Gasparino holds views that are being echoed elsewhere:

After each market implosion (in 1986-7 and 1994 and on through the 1998 LTCM crisis), Wall Street returned to risk on a larger scale — until the mother of all meltdowns swept the financial system this time last year. That crisis forced the feds to enact the mother of all bailouts — billions pumped into the banking system, with Uncle Sam becoming the largest shareholder of Citigroup, one of the world’s largest financial institutions — and declaring for the first time that the banking system officially is off limits to failure.

It is that declaration — made by then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and followed through by his successor Tim Geithner, about protecting “systemically important” institutions — that will guarantee future excessive risk taking and yet another financial implosion. In fact, the seeds of the next meltdown are already being sown.

And, from the New York Post:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the US has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system a year after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

"In the US and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger," Stiglitz told Bloomberg News in an interview yesterday in Paris. "The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."

Welcome to the recovery.

September 14, 2009   Permalink

WE WONDER WHY - AT 7:47 A.M. ET:  The American press, which tends to blame its current economic woes on the internet, got a dose of reality last night when the Pew Research Center released its latest report card on public confidence in the news media:

The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.

Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news media’s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.

You may be sure that the reaction of the media to this finding will be to hold crisis meetings and pull out all stops to rid their organizations of bias and incompetence.

If you believe that last sentence you have serious problems, and we can recommend a list of political therapists.

More findings:

Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased.

I found this fascinating:

And while just a third of Democrats (33%) say news organizations are “too critical of America,” that reflects a 10-point increase since 2007.

What?  Those are Democrats?  When the media starts to lose the Dems, you know the "journalists" are in trouble. 

And this is decisive:

The poll finds that television remains the dominant news source for the public, with 71% saying they get most of their national and international news from television. More than four-in-ten (42%) say they get most of their news on these subjects from the internet, compared with 33% who cite newspapers.

Yes, the internet is indeed "taking over," but it's taking over as Americans lose confidence in traditional media.  Newspapers aren't losing readers simply because of "technology," but because they're failing to deliver a product that people trust. 

I'd now love to see a survey on American attitudes toward Hollywood.  You remember Hollywood, don't you? 

September 14,  2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  SEPTEMBER 13,  2009

TWO DAYS - AT 10:58 P.M. ET:  That's how long it took for President Obama to condemn the murder of an anti-abortion activist in Michigan Friday morning:

OWOSSO, Mich. (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Sunday condemned the killing of an anti-abortion activist in Michigan as activists and others gathered for vigil near the site where he was fatally shot.

Obama called last week's shooting of James Pouillon ''deplorable'' in a two-sentence statement.

''Whichever side of a public debate you're on, violence is never the right answer,'' Obama said in the statement.

COMMENT:  Reminds us of the amount of time it took the president to wander to a microphone during the Iranian uprising and announce that democracy was a good thing.

Mr. Obama was a lot swifter in denouncing, appropriately, of course, the murder of abortionist George Tiller on May 31st.  The White House should have been on top of this Friday afternoon.  The double standard is obvious.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

HUMAN RIGHTS BOTCH - AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  Human Rights Watch, one of the major "human rights" organizations, is increasingly being exposed as the crackpot organization it's become over the years.  (e.g.:  One of its Middle East "experts" was recently revealed as collecting Nazi paraphernalia.)   And other "human rights" groups are coming under scrutiny. 

"Human rights," of course, is a term that has, historically, been appropriated by pro-communist and pro-fascist elements to try to cloak their operations in respectability. 

Iranian freedom activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi alerts us to the latest "human rights" farce, as reported on the website of Azarmehr, another Iranian freedom activist.  Press TV, mentioned in the story, is owned by the Iranian regime.  Get this:

I just got home and while channel hopping tuned into Press TV. It was Andrew Gilligan's Forum, which tonight debated torture. The guests included the London Director of Human Rights Watch, Tom Porteous, and the executive director of Reprieve, Clare Algar.

How absurd, actually how disgusting! It is the anniversary of the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988, and the television station where the program is aired from is funded by a junta that is holding show trials and forced confessions on its state TV.

Gilligan is presenting a program debating torture on a TV which is funded by a regime that gang rapes male and female detainees who have taken part in peaceful protests - and the likes of Andrew Gilligan, Tom Porteous and Clare Algar not once mention any human rights abuse in the country where their paymasters are ruling with an iron fist.

COMMENT:  Why should anyone be surprised?  This is the way the game is played.  So-called "human rights activists" appear on a television program funded by one of the most repressive regimes in the world, and just play along.  Then they go back to their offices, write something critical of the United States, and get interviewed by "journalists" eager to hear their views.  It's sickening, but groups like Human Rights Watch are influential, and influence young people. 

Don't expect these groups to be confronted by the mainstream media.  That's not in the script.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

SNOWE JOB - AT 7:41 P.M. ET:  Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, a moderate Republican who often votes with Democrats, is recommending that President Obama take the public option in health-care reform off the table:

A key Republican senator who President Obama hopes will support his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system urged him Sunday to take any plan for a new government-run program “off the table.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, where the most-watched version of the health care bill is being written, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the so-called public option is “universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate” and “therefore, there’s no way to pass a plan that includes the public option.”

Ms. Snowe, who has previously criticized the public option, said she thought it unwise at this juncture to be clinging to the public option because doing so “leaves open a legislative possibility that creates uncertainty in this process.” On the other, she said, scuttling the public option for good “could give real momentum to building a consensus on other issues.”

COMMENT:  If Snowe is against it, it's probably dead.  It's unlikely the Dems could get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to override a filibuster, as several Democrats would probably also abandon the public option. 

Obama should do what he's been advised to do, endlessly:  Work on fixing the flaws in the system, not overturning what works for 80% of Americans.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 12:14 P.M. ET:  From the great Michael Barone, one of our best political commentators.  He comments on the breathtaking assertion by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and distinguished philosopher/scientist/statesman/ranter Al Gore, that the debate over global warming is over.  Barone recalls earlier warnings, now forgotten, about overpopulation:

The lesson I take from the overpopulation scare is to be wary when media, university and corporate elites warn that we must change our ways or face disaster 50 years hence, and when they insist, as Al Gore does and Friedman seems to, that the time for argument is over. In our two-party democracy it never is. And shouldn't be.

COMMENT:  I recall a comment by Larry Summers, who is better than the administration he now serves, expressing his skepticism about warnings that we're "running out of" this or that.  He pointed out that the world has rarely run out of anything. 

There are many elitists who try to shut down debate on the ground that "experts" have decided, or that there's a "consensus" at some international conference.  President Obama is one of the worst offenders, often belittling his opponents as quibblers, or even suggesting, as he did recently on health care, that debate isn't helpful. 

We've seen too many experts proved wrong over time.  Debate anything you wish.  That is the American way.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

GRACIOUSNESS, ALWAYS GRACIOUSNESS - AT 11:12 A.M. ET:  Now the Iranians respond to our decision to enter negotiations with them, although they'd said they wouldn't discuss their nuclear program:

Teheran will not negotiate with the West over its nuclear "rights," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said again on Sunday, after the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany accepted the Islamic republic's offer to hold talks.

"From the Iranian nation's viewpoint, [Iran's] nuclear case is closed," Reuters quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Britain's new ambassador to Teheran, citing a report by official media.

Do you love the progress?  Do you love the change we can believe in?

Oh, there's also some news following our cave-in to the North Korean demand that we meet them one-on-one:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, during his most recent meeting with party and military leaders, reportedly gave instructions that the reclusive regime prepare for a third nuclear test, this time using enriched uranium, according to reports from Free Radio of North Korea, based in South Korea.

Kim "emphasized the importance of improvement of nuclear technologies with the aim of attracting the U.S. to direct bilateral talks," according to the radio station's source.

COMMENT:  All of us will go to bed tonight knowing that Barack Obama has made us safer.

Sleep somewhere underground.  Have food and water for three months.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - AT 10:47 A.M. ET:  Today's Rasmussen report is the first where all the polling was done after the president's speech.  The bounce reported yesterday continues, and grows larger, as expected:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 34% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -4. That’s the President’s best Approval Index rating in over a month.

And the president's overall approval rating is up:

Overall, 51% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That represents a one point improvement since his Wednesday night speech and is the President’s best rating in three weeks. Forty-eight percent (48%) now disapprove.

And...

The President’s speech also provided a modest bounce in support for his health care plans. Voters are evenly divided at this time with 48% in favor and 48% opposed.

COMMENT:  The bounce will probably not last, and, even with it, the president's numbers are nothing to write home about.  Still, the tie vote on the health plan will give encouragement to the White House.  They can now claim that Mr. Obama has reversed the downward slide, in public opinion, of his health plan.  To a degree, that's true.  The bleeding (not covered by Obamacare) has stopped for now.

Much will depend on how the opposition maneuvers.  Town meetings and demonstrations are not enough.  The Republicans must be out there, on camera, every day, zeroing in on what's wrong with the president's plan and proposing attractive, understandable alternatives.  Otherwise, Obama and his allies in Congress, if they continue their PR campaign, might just slip their plan through, just as we think we're winning.

Washington reads polls far more religiously than it reads the Bible.  The air has to be taken out of that bounce.

September 13, 2009   Permalink

GREAT WEEKEND, HUH? - AT 10:15 A.M. ET:  There's a rule of thumb in Washington:  Announce all bad news on Friday afternoon, or over the weekend.  Fewer people are tuned in.

This weekend began with the announcement that we were accepting Iran's pathetic offer to begin negotiations - even though the Iranians ruled out any discussion of their nuclear program, which is the main thing we want to talk about.  The weekend continued with the announcement that we're granting North Korea's wish for one-on-one talks with the United States, even though they've constantly defied us, and even though all negotiations with North Korea have ultimately failed. 

Now reader Joseph J. Gallick alerts us to something new.  From The Washington Post:

Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.

The new system will be applied to the more than 600 Afghans held at the Bagram military base, and will mark the first substantive change in the overseas detention policies that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration.

International human rights organizations have long criticized conditions at the Bagram facility, where detainees have been held -- many of them for years -- without access to lawyers or even the right to know the reason for their imprisonment. Afghans have cited Bagram, where virtually all prisoners in U.S. custody are held, as a major source of resentment toward coalition forces, a senior administration official said.

COMMENT:  First of all, I don't think we should take our cues from "international human rights organizations," some of which are hopelessly corrupt.  Human Rights Watch is a cesspool of dishonesty and bias. 

Obviously, we must meet our international obligations.  However, why do I think this new set of rules will open a Pandora's box that will make it harder and harder to apprehend people who are a danger to our soldiers and to Afghan civilians?  Who'll want to stick his neck out?  When will we read that the American interrogators are under investigation?

We'll see how this plays.  But given Attorney General Holder's recent move to reinvestigate CIA agents of the Bush era, I suspect we know how the script will be written.

September 13,  2009   Permalink