Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SATURDAY,  APRIL 3,  2010

THE GAME IS ON – AT 9:14 P.M. ET:  The "threat" game is rapidly becoming a part of the 2010 campaign.  We discussed it this week at Urgent Agenda.  It's pretty clear that the Democrats will attempt to frame the opposition as dangerous, radical, violent, and racist.  Welcome to the 1960s.

Harry Reid gives us an example, as reported by Fox Nation:

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada canceled giving his testimony at an LDS fireside last Sunday night because of angry calls, e-mails and even threats. The Democratic Senator is a member of the LDS Church and was invited to offer remarks at an LDS fireside at the Tule Springs Stake in Las Vegas. The fireside on “Why I Believe” was canceled after the threats were made. His press secretary said there were no threats of violence initiated against Reid but he canceled because of the threats against his invitation to speak. Sen. Reid received a warm welcome at BYU in October, 2007 and stands firm on his religious and political views.

COMMENT:  Why, why, the man can't even speak!  He had to cancel to protect people around him!  Terrible, terrible.  Those people in white sheets!

The fact is, politicians get threats all the time.  I've listened to endless numbers of politicos, almost always on the left, reporting "death threats."  Now, by definition, these people are still alive. 

We certainly don't condone crude behavior or physical threats here.  But canceling an appearance because of "threats" is a bit much.  It's part of the political game.  Do we really want to elect those thugs?  And be prepared for heavy charges of "racism" if Obama runs again in 2012. 

I wrote at the Angel's Corner last night that charges of crude behavior against opponents are almost always based on the opponents' beliefs, rarely the behavior itself.  I haven't heard Reid or any Democratic leader expressing concern over wild-eyed behavior on the left. 

The trouble, of course, is that bad behavior is a magnificent subject for the in-the-tank media, as they can usually find some jerk to show on TV.  It's an ideal issue for the Dems and their ink-stained allies to work together.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER OPENING, ANOTHER SHOW – AT 6:44 P.M. ET:  Justice John Paul Stevens, who tilts to the liberal side of the Supreme Court, has given a public hint as to his retirement plans:

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says he "will surely" retire while President Barack Obama is still in office, giving the president the opportunity to maintain the high court's ideological balance.

Stevens said in newspaper interviews on the Web Saturday that he will decide soon on the timing of his retirement, whether it will be this year or next. Stevens, the leader of the court's liberals, turns 90 this month and is the oldest justice.

His departure would give Obama his second nomination to the court, enabling him to ensure there would continue to be at least four liberal-leaning justices. The high court is often split 5 to 4 on major cases, with the vote of moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy often deciding which side prevails.

"I will surely do it while he's still president," Stevens told The Washington Post.

COMMENT:  Some will say that a Stevens retirement, followed by an Obama anointment, will not change the Court's ideological balance. 

Not necessarily true.  There are liberals, and then there are super-liberals.  Stevens is a liberal voice, but he's hardly a flamethrower.  My own sense is that Obama, who only needs a majority in the Senate to push through a nominee, dreams of a real ideologist on the bench.  Some of his lower-court appointments have been disturbing. 

Of course, if the GOP takes over the Senate in November – a long shot – all will be different.  Even if it doesn't, the tiny number of Democratic moderates who are left could block an extreme appointment, although the term "Democratic moderate" now seems like a contradiction-in-terms, given how most of that crowd caved during the health-care fight.

I'd expect another minority-group appointment, possibly an African-American, who would provide leftist balance to Clarence Thomas, whose existence as a human being the left barely recognizes.

April 3, 2010   Permalink 

GOP HEALTH-CARE STRATEGY EMERGING – AT 12:25 P.M. ET:  We've said here many times that the GOP must have a positive strategy.  It can't simply be the party of "no."  Nothing will be more important than developing a program for dealing with, and pushing back, Obamacare.  One seems to be emerging:

Repealing the entire healthcare bill "probably" will not happen with President Barack Obama in the White House, the Senate's top Republican said Friday.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said at a speaking engagement that a full repeal may be unlikely, but that the GOP could be able to repeal parts of it in the fall, even if they don't win back majorities in both houses.

And...

"...this (legislation) is very complex, it’s got a lot of moving parts, many of them have not yet kicked in, won’t kick in for several years. And so the goal would be to repeal it and replace it with something more modest directed at the cost problem, which is what I think most of this whole debate was about in the beginning.”

And...

McConnell has touted a "repeal and replace" strategy since healthcare reform became law just over 10 days ago. Under the plan, opponents would get rid of the law supported by only Democrats and would replace it with new reform legislation...

...Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday that Republicans are considering ways to work around a presidential veto. His plan would still be subject to a veto, though a politically tougher one for Obama to enact.

The GOP, in recent years, hasn't exactly been a fountain of creativity.  The intellectual vigor on the right has been in magazines, think tanks, and books.  That must change.  Voters, in November, won't be voting for a column in The Weekly Standard, but for people and plans.  Plans please.  And put on some speed.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

I DO WISH THE PRESIDENT WOULD DEVELOP A SENSE OF HUMOR – AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  We don't have royalty in America, but the president is chief of state, and some presidents have had difficulty matching the personality to the position.

Carter was a small-minded, mean-spirited man who never quite filled the Oval Office.  Clinton, a gifted politician, did fill the Oval Office – with young women. 

Then came The One.  And The One takes criticism very seriously.  Occasionally, he might consider dealing with his critics with some humor, and maintain the dignity of the office.  But he hasn't figured that out, as The Politico reports:

Barack Obama’s tongue-lashing of conservative talk-show titans Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck this week could prove a winner for both sides.

The president gets a boost with his base and may win over some independents by tying his political opponents to two of the nation's most polarizing figures.

But the conservative talkers get presidential confirmation that they're at the center of the political debate — together with a collection of sound bytes that will fuel their shows for days to come.

In an interview that aired on CBS’s "Early Show" Friday, Obama said the rhetoric employed by the chief chatterers of the conservative movement is “troublesome” — and he cast Limbaugh and Beck as demagogues who cash in on the fears of Americans struggling through a rough economy.

Limbaugh fired back in an email to POLITICO, arguing that his ratings are just fine in good time and bad — and accusing Obama of "purposely" governing "against the will of the people."

It's not the first time a president has gone after conservative talk radio; in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton said that "promoters of paranoia" on the airwaves "must know that their bitter words can have consequences."

COMMENT:  Look, both Rush and Glenn can, at times, go over the top.  But both are talented broadcasters who express their views no more vigorously than do some of Mr. Obama's left-wing supporters and media fronts. 

The president has, at times, seemed obsessed with Fox News.  Now, true, presidents before him have also become frustrated by the media.  John F. Kennedy famously cancelled his subscription to the old New York Herald-Tribune, in its day a rival to The New York Times.  But Kennedy, when called upon at a press conference to assess his treatment by the press, quipped, in a takeoff on a cigarette commercial of the time, "I'm reading more and enjoying it less."

Obama might try that approach.  Attempt a little wit.  Can't hurt, might help.  Might also assist in softening the image of his administration as a group of Chicago street pols, previously invested in who gets a traffic light on the corner, who can't stand the national heat. 

But there's a question:  Does the president have a wit, or do demigods leave that quality behind when they ascend to their lofty heights?

April 3, 2010   Permalink

ONE GENERATION AWAY – AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  Ronald Reagan liked to say, and my friend Silvio Canto Jr. reminds us each day at his site, that freedom is only a generation away from extinction. 

As we watch the polls, and maybe draw some solace from Obama's declining approval, let's not forget that elections in democracies are won by 50% plus one at the polls.  You can have 49.99% of the nation thinking the leader is a complete disaster, but it doesn't matter if he's able to patch together enough interest groups to win the office.

Let's not forget that the British people, whom we like to think of as resolute and stalwart, turned Winston Churchill out of the prime minister's post in mid-1945, before the war in the Pacific was even over.  Let's not forget that Jimmah Carter was ahead in the polls for most of the 1980 campaign.  Had that trend persisted, no one would remember Ronald Reagan today. 

Rasmussen is reporting this morning that the president's support, which increased a bit in his survey last week, is surging among Democrats.  Yes, I know – neither Dems nor Republicans are a majority.  But if either party can pick up enough independents, it can win and take power.  And it can strangle the next generation through fiscal chaos, which is what we're heading toward. 

So I worry that the increasing enthusiasm of Democrats for the "victories" of Obama, like Obamacare, will bring us closer to the day when the nanny staters will have a rock-solid base, and only need a relatively small number of disgruntled independents to hang on to power.  That has happened in Europe.

And it can happen here. 

One generation away.

April 3, 2010   Permalink

IRAN SPEAKS – AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Do you sometimes get the feeling that the president of Iran is a child, and that the president of the United States is his rag doll?  From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected a renewed call from the United States to engage diplomatically to overcome the nuclear standoff, saying he saw no change in Washington's hostile policy.

Speaking at a factory inauguration on Saturday, Ahmadinejad said a message by President Barack Obama to mark the Iranian new year last month contained "three or four beautiful words" but nothing new of substance.

"They say that 'we have extended our hands to the people of Iran but the government of Iran and the people of Iran pushed it back'. What hand did you extend toward us?" Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech.

"What changed? Your sanctions were lifted? The adverse propaganda was stopped? The pressure was alleviated? Did you change your attitude in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?"

And...

Iran would easily cope with any new sanctions on petroleum imports, Ahmadinejad said, adding that such measures would only serve to strengthen his people's resolve.

"You should know that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double," he said.

COMMENT:  If I were the president of Iran, I'd say exactly the same thing.  What does he have to lose?  The Iranians, historically, have been superb negotiators, and they've basically backed us into a corner.  What do we do now?  Iran has rejected our overtures.  Iran has rejected European negotiations for seven years.  Iran's nuclear program forges ahead.  The Chinese have already said they won't vote, at the UN Security Council, for anything more than cosmetic escalation of sanctions.  And Hillary Clinton, apparently reverting to her 1960s childhood, has essentially ruled out military action.  (Hillary is on a sixties roll:  Yesterday she determined, after much thought and prayer, that there was no military solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  In fact, Israel has survived for 62 years precisely because of its military strength.)

So why should Iran do a thing except spin its centrifuges and laugh?  It took the president of the United States, Chicago semi-tough guy Barack Obama, four days to cruise up to a microphone and denounce the suppression of Iranian democracy demonstrators.

How do you spell FAILURE?  That describes our Iran policy.  Washington is already planning for a nuclear Iran.  I wonder how Hillary and the Wizard of Pennsylvania Avenue will explain that away.

April 3,  2010   Permalink

FRIDAY,  APRIL 2,  2010

OBAMA SINKS IN ANOTHER POLL – AT 8:08 P.M. ET:  The polling data gathered by a number of polling organizations this week cannot be denied – the president continues to be in trouble, although today's guardedly optimistic employment report may help him. 

There's a real anger out there, and the president is taking his share of it.  From CBS News:

Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.

The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.

General approval ratings, when you combine polls, are hovering in the mid-40s.  Disapproval ratings tend to very more widely, with Rasmussen showing disapproval in the low 50s.

When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.

And...

Just 42 percent said they approved of how President Obama is handling the economy, only one point above January's all-time low. Half of the public disapproves.

COMMENT:  Well, if the election were held today, Obama might well be calling the moving vans.  But, as an old political wag liked to say, "If the election were held today...I'd be very surprised."  We have seven months to go, the Democrats are raising more money than the Republicans again, and the perpetual campaign run from The White House is moving into major gear. 

Don't be lulled by polls.  The results are pleasing...today.  But the Republican Party remains unpopular, and its leadership is shaky.  The press hasn't yet  unleashed the kind of bias bomb we saw in 2008, but the planes have taken off.

Fight as if you're 20 points down.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

AND THEN THERE'S BRITAIN – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  As the Obamans smile upon our enemies, they continue to heap subtle and not-so-subtle abuse on our friends.  While the Israeli prime minister was distinctly humiliated in Washington recently, no ally has been more "dissed" in the last year than Britain, to the utter indifference of most of the Washington press corps.

Charles Krauthammer notes the record, and also notes that another member of the Commonwealth is getting the cold shoulder from The One:

Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region -- common language, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

Oh Charles, get over it.  India is so...so past.  I mean, dearie, they've gone capitalist.  How can we cheer the new oppression?  And they haven't crashed planes into American buildings.  Have they no pride?

The humiliation of Winston Churchill's homeland began as soon as Obama took the oath:

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama's America?

If you're a Brit, your head is spinning. It's not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama's sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the United States and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

How to explain this?  After all, as noted, Obama has treated many allies badly.  However...

...the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. "We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops," writes Bruce Anderson in London's Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship.

Well, said David Manning, a former British ambassador to the United States, to a House of Commons committee reporting on that very relationship: "[Obama] is an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia and who had a Kenyan father. The sentimental reflexes, if you like, are not there."

What?  You mean we're permitted to discuss such things?  After years of Americans being told by the coastal elites that culture was pretty much everything, we were instructed during the 2008 campaign that it would be "racist" to mention it in relation to the man who would be president.  Why, he was just like all of us.

Finally...

How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness.

COMMENT:  I suspect principle.  And, given the taking over of 1/6th of the American economy through Obamacare, and the acquisition of General Motors, I think it may get much worse.  Quite a guy we elected.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

WE ASSUME WASHINGTON IS WATCHING – AT 7:23 P.M. ET:  For decades the Russians have wanted to make inroads in South America.  The end of the Cold War did not reduce their appetite. 

Last week the Obamans announced, with great fanfare, that they'd come to a new arms-control agreement with Moscow, and hailed the "reset" of our relationship with the old reds.  But Vladmir Putin, no admirer of baseball and apple pie, already had travel plans:

CARACAS, April 2 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visited Venezuela on Friday to discuss oil, defense and nuclear energy cooperation with Latin America's main leftist foe of the United States, President Hugo Chavez.

They were to launch a $20 billion venture between Russian firms and Venezuelan state company PDVSA to pump 450,000 barrels a day -- almost a fifth of the OPEC member's current output -- from the vast Orinoco heavy oil belt.

Putin's 12-hour visit provides a welcome lift for Chavez, who is facing domestic and international criticism for failing to solve Venezuela's economic woes and attempting to silence opposition to his 11-year rule.

Now, let us see if the environmentally obsessive American left shows the slightest concern over this massive oil deal, with the attendant pumping and potential for a mess.  When Obama announced the tiniest oil exploration program off our own coasts this week, the left went ultra-ballistic.  Psychiatrists and wiccan priestesses were on call.

Hey Danny Glover, Sean Penn – any interest?

Russia is moving heavily into South America, and today's actions are far more serious than any dabbling that Khruschev did with Fidel Castro, who also, like Chavez, spent an inordinate amount of time hosting film actors. 

There have also been many reports recently of Iran developing a close relationship with Venezuela.  And Bolivia, under a pro-red regime, has also become a problem.

Has the White House noticed?

April 2, 2010    Permalink

OBAMA AND THE INDEPENDENTS – AT 10:24 A.M. ET:  One of the most overlooked political stories this year is the rapid deterioration in the support President Obama receives from independents.  Unless he can reverse this, all his political efforts will fail because the numbers simply won't be there.  From The Washington Times:

President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008.

At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama's health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November's midterm elections.

"There is an overall sense of frustration that no one is listening," pollster Scott Rasmussen said about a problem that has plagued the political party in power for decades.

Mr. Rasmussen said the more pressing issue for Democrats is that swing voters are not just anxious about health care; they're also angry about the stimulus package and auto industry bailouts.

"It is gathering steam in the sense that the longer the frustration goes unanswered, the more it grows," said the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

In 2008, Mr. Obama's hope and change messages seemed to win over independents, and he captured about 52 percent of the independent vote in the election that year.

Self-identified independents continued to back Mr. Obama through June, with about 60 percent saying they approved of his job performance. But as the year wore on and the health care battle gained steam, their approval of the president plummeted and hardened in the low 40s, according to Quinnipiac University polls.

COMMENT:  One of the most intriguing aspects of the president's decline is that people seem to like him less as an individual, and to have less confidence in him than they once had.  He had a magnetism (at least to some) during the campaign, but the aura has worn off.  Auras don't come easily, and they're hard to put back.   

Maybe the public expected too much.  We were sold a god and we got a silver-tongued local pol.  There's bound to be some buyer's remorse, but we still have to pay off the full four years of the contract.  After that, we talk.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

BEWARE THE HYPE – AT 9:42 A.M. ET:  We're always happy to have good news about America, but be careful with this one, and work the details.  From The New York Times:

The American economy added 162,000 jobs in March, offering some hope that the labor market, after shedding millions of jobs during the recession, had reached a turning point.

The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent. It is expected to worsen later this year as discouraged workers re-enter the labor force.

That's the key point.  The unemployment rate hasn't changed, and the underemployment rate has actually gone up. 

The pace of job growth in March was the best in three years, bolstering hopes that the still-sputtering recovery was gaining momentum.

But economists sounded a cautious note, pointing out that a sizable portion of the growth came from the government’s hiring of 48,000 census workers. There were clear signs, however, that the private sector was slowly gaining strength: over all, it added 123,000 jobs last month.

Deduct the census hires, temporaries, and the figure looks far less impressive.

From Bloomberg:

The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- increased to 16.9 percent from 16.8 percent.

The report also showed an increased in long-term unemployed Americans. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or more rose as a percentage of all jobless, to a record 44.1 percent.

We hope for the best, but we'll need many months of gains just to begin to get us out of this mess.  And with the economic burdens of Obamacare starting to hit big corporations, we should be skeptical of those who wish to break out the champagne.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

SAD, AND ENRAGING – AT 8:55 A.M. ET:  This is one of those stories that, inevitably, leads us to think about the past.  For some of us, but only the males, the past goes way back:

FREMONT, Calif. (AP) - The last car has rolled off the production lines at California's sole auto plant.

Workers are trickling out of the New United Motor Manufacturing plant in Fremont as they complete their tasks and the plant readies to shut down.

Nearby, job centers have been set up to help the newly unemployed figure out benefits, retraining and other options.

The plant made Toyota Tacoma trucks and Corolla sedans. The last Tacoma rolled off the assembly lines last week, and Corolla production ended Thursday.

The plant began 25 years ago as a joint venture between Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. GM pulled out last year, and Toyota later announced it would halt production, eliminating about 4,700 jobs.

State officials are pursuing federal grants to help those impacted by the closure.

COMMENT:  Once the golden state, wasn't it?  Soldiers of World War II who passed through California on their way to the Pacific came back to make it their home and fueled the great California post-war boom.  That boom was also fired by industry, by real manufacturing.  California made things.  Cars and, especially, planes.  The dream factory in Hollywood was only part of the story.

Today California is nearly bankrupt.  The factories are largely gone, many driven out by the high cost of doing business and by a left-wing legislature that doesn't seem to care, really.  Yes, Apple Computer, the shining star of the new technology – its iPad is all the rage this week – is in Cupertino.  But check the place of manufacture of any Apple product.  Asia. 

There aren't too many dreams coming out of the dream factory these days, either.  More like nightmares.  At ten bucks a ticket, plus five if you want some popcorn.  Ronald Reagan tried to talk sense into Californians, but he only had two terms as governor in which to do it.  The golden state has faded, overrun by illegal immigrants – oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say adventurous sojourners – and by state programs that have grown far too fat and expensive. 

There used to be a saying that what started in California would eventually sweep across the country.  At one time we welcomed it.  Times have changed.  We hope that a new, conservative governor will be elected this fall who will make a down payment at setting things right, and will probably be ground up in the process.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

THOSE NAUGHTY PEOPLE – AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  The Politico reported yesterday that the White House is crafting Mr. Obama's political strategy for this year.  One part of that strategy, and, I believe, a major part, is on display this week.  Consider just one comment from Mr. Obama, in reply to a question from ultra-sympathetic interviewer Harry Smith:

"I do think that everybody has a responsibility — Democrats or Republicans — to tone down some of this rhetoric, some of these comments. …It used to be that someone who said something crazy, they might be saying it to their next door neighbor or it might be on some late night AM station at the very end of the radio dial and now with the blogs, it ends up getting a lot more attention and you guys end up covering it a lot more. It's not as if there haven't been a lot of crazy things said out and about over the years, it's just that it gets much more magnified much more quickly."

COMMENT:  There's now a concerted effort to portray the president and his party as the responsible adults, as compared to the shouting, screaming, barn-burning extremists of the GOP and its tea-drinking friends, especially that beauty-contest runner-up from what's-it's-place, Alaska? 

There is nothing new here, but the strategy could be effective today, as it's been in the past.   Once you get tarred with the "extremist" label, it's hard to shake it.  This is what might be called an issue multiplier.  After all, who controls what "incidents" are shown on TV?  The mainstream media.  The mainstream media was key to putting Barack Obama in the White House.  If Obama makes "decency" a hallmark of this year's campaign, who do you think is going to be shown, the greater proportion of the time, acting badly?

Right.  You guessed it.   A theme like "we're decent and they're not" is ready-made for the in-the-tank media, and you're already seeing the effects.  Tea partiers are accused of racial rants when there were none.  One commentator said that a conservative talk-show host called the president a Nazi, but no one can find any such quote.  Watch for this trend.  The strategy is to make the other side radioactive, and it often works.

April 2, 2010   Permalink

THE WORST DOUBLE-TALK – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  It's getting to the point where you have to examine every presidential word to try to figure out what Obama means, if he means anything.  Today he spoke out on Iran, one of the gravest challenges we face.  The result, when you look at it closely, was disturbing:

Evidence shows Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. President Barack Obama told CBS on Friday, adding that he felt his administration should continue the pressure on Tehran to cooperate with the international community over its contentious nuclear program.

In an interview to "The Early Show" Friday, Obama said "all the evidence indicates" that Tehran is trying to get the "capacity to develop nuclear weapons."

With such a capability, Obama said that Iran could "destabilize" life in the Mideast and trigger an arms race in the region, adding that, for that reason, he felt "the idea here is to keep on turning up the pressure."

"We're going to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond but we're going to do so with a unified international community," Obama said.

COMMENT:  Please notice that, after all the tough-guy rhetoric, the most important word in that statement was "but" – "but we're going to do so with a unified international community." 

They must be celebrating in the Iranian Ministry of Pure Thoughts and Long Skirts today.  The president essentially gave up the idea of any unilateral American action, even though everyone over the age of six knows there won't be any unified international community...unless you define unity as agreement to frown at the Iranians, and little more.

China has been stressing all week that it opposes tough sanctions on Iran, and China holds veto power in the Security Council.  It absolutely opposes military action against Tehran.

An Iranian diplomat, visiting China, said yesterday that his country sees sanctions as an opportunity, and he's probably right.

Again, Mr. Obama believes his mouth can solve a major international problem, or at least explain it away.  Think of the Mideast ten years from now, with Iran a nuclear power.  That is the proper reply to the president.

April 2,  2010   Permalink