TUESDAY,  DECEMBER 1,  2009

BEST COMMENT - AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  I've continued to monitor reaction to the president's speech.  The most insightful comment I heard was from Dana Perino, President Bush's last press secretary, who asserted that Mr. Obama was trying to speak to too many audiences.  I agree.  The speech lacked the singularity of purpose of a great address, especially a great war address.  Once again, the president could not restrain his temptation to run for office...constantly.

The 2011 deadline proposed by President Obama figured into many of the comments I heard.  Conservatives, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, were uniformly critical of the president for stating a deadline while we're in the midst of combat.

Potentially, the most important remarks came from those who warned, as the president did, about nuclear weapons in Pakistan falling into the wrong hands. 

One striking feature:  Very few Democrats reacted publicly, at least from what I observed.  Their party is a national-security mess, with too many cards held by a sixties crowd that never grew up.   

I cannot help but think of Iran.  That crisis is now, and yet the president seemed overwhelmed by Afghanistan.  There are clouds ahead.

One clear thing that Mr. Obama must consider:  He must consider reaching out to the Republican Party, especially Senator John McCain.  The GOP is willing to help him in areas where he's losing the wine and Brie wing of his own party.  Thus far, Mr. Obama has been too partisan on foreign policy.  It's in his own interest to put that stage behind him.  He should start tomorrow.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

LIVE BLOGGING THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH:

9:15 P.M. ET:  Most of the analysis is over.  Lindsey Graham gave one of the most reasonable responses, saying that he supported the surge in Afghanistan, but not the giving of a timeline.  By contrast, Dennis Kucinich, on Fox, gave the response of the lunatic fringe, which is to pull out of Afghanistan now.  When asked how he'd deal with the Taliban, he replied, "Negotiate."  The way we do with Iran, I guess.

8:48 P.M. ET:  Turned to CNN, which looks like it has about 6,000 pundits on screen at the same time.  It's like the old Ed Sullivan Show.  But Barbara Starr, one of the best reporters at CNN, points out that Obama put boundaries around our effort in Afghanistan, and she was plainly skeptical.

8:45 P.M. ET:  Switched to MSNBC.  Chris Matthews sounds crazy, attacking Paul Wolfowitz.  Rachel Maddow is attacking George Bush.  It's a waste of time.  Switch off.

8:40 P.M. ET:  Reaction to the speech begins.  Krauthammer is down on it, calling it "strange."  He compares the speech to Bush's speech announcing the surge in Iraq.  Krauthammer points out that Bush never talked about a timeline. 

8:36 P.M. ET:  Speech over.  A good speech, but we'll have to look at the details.  Lots of idealism in the speech.  The shadow of his party's left still hangs over everything. 

8:35 P.M. ET:  Obama gets more applause by asking for national unity.  He might send a note about that to the leftist fringe in his party, and to the Hollywood crowd. 

8:33 P.M. ET:  Obama gets his first applause by committing the U.S. to advancing freedom to others.  This has been a weakness in his administration, and it's good to hear the words.  We'll see if the words have meaning.   

8:30 P.M. ET:  Obama is now talking about his attempts to rebuild our diplomacy, a slap at Bush that is unnecessary. 

8:25 P.M. ET:  Obama is now discussing the economic cost of war.  A bit discordant when we're talking about human life.  Now he says we must rebuild our economy here at home.  That's true, but you get the uneasy feeling that this part is politics.  Says that economics is one reason why our commitment to Afghanistan cannot be open-ended. 

8:23 P.M. ET:  Obama is now attempting to knock down the arguments against sending additional troops.  He rejects, correctly, the notion that this is another Vietnam.  He rejects the status quo.

8:18 P.M. ET:  Obama is saying that the Afghan government must understand that it bears ultimate responsbility for security in its country.  It's okay, but I'm uneasy about that timeline.  It contradicts everything else the president is saying. 

8:15 P.M. ET:  He's kind of back on track, giving a list of our goals in Afghanistan, and they're reasonable and well presented.  But again he now says we'll achieve these things in 18 months.  This timeline is designed to appease the left, and is weakening the speech.

8:13 P.M. ET:  Whoops.  The speech is going a bit off the rails.  Obama inserts a discordant note, reminding the audience that he opposed the Iraq war.  And now he announces that he'll deploy 30,000 additional troops, but says they'll start coming home in 2011.  What?  Why signal to the enemy what your withdrawal plans are?  This part falls down.  We're still listening.

8:11 P.M. ET:  A reasonable speech so far.  Obama is making clear that the Taliban must be defeated.  He is also defending himself, insisting that there has been no delay in deploying troops.  About that we'll see.

8:07 P.M. ET:  Obama gets a little dig in at our taking our eyes off Afghanistan, but does praise what we've accomplished in Iraq.  Good.  Can't quibble with it.

8:04 P.M. ET:  Mr. Obama starts strongly, in words that could have been spoken by George W. Bush.  He correctly reminds us of 9-11, the reason we're in Afghanistan.  He denounces the Taliban clearly.  He gives the usual stuff that Al Qaeda distorts Islam, but, in context, it's reasonably stated.

8:02 P.M. ET:  The president enters to reasonable applause.

8:01 P.M. ET:  The president is about to speak at Eisenhower Hall, United States Military Academy, West Point.  I have spent many happy hours in that hall, usually listening to the West Point Concert Band. 

7:58 P.M. ET:    We'll start our live-blogging of the president's address from West Point in a few minutes.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

NO WAY TO DO IT - AT 6:29 P.M. ET:   We are getting a disturbing report about what the president will say tonight.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to announce Tuesday night that he will begin to transition American forces out of Afghanistan beginning in July 2011, setting the first time frame to begin reducing troop levels there nearly a decade after the United States first sent soldiers in to topple the Taliban government, senior administration officials said.

Mr. Obama will set the drawdown goal even as he orders another 30,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan over the next six months in an effort to reverse the momentum of Taliban insurgents fighting to regain control of the country. By expediting the flow of reinforcements, officials said Mr. Obama hopes to create urgency for the government in Kabul to match the American surge with one using its own forces.

Oh, no, no, no.  It appears that Obama has caved to his left wing.  What is nuttier than announcing your withdrawal date when you're in the middle of combat?  What if, in 1943, President Roosevelt had announced, "I'm sending more troops to the Pacific, but we'll wind it up in early 1945"?

The tribes of Asia think in terms of decades, and centuries.  Now we have gifted them with a schedule.  They simply have to hold out another two years, and things will be fine.  This is not a strategy for victory.  It's a strategy for pleasing the California House delegation, with the Massachusetts crowd thrown in.

John McCain gets it right:

Senator John McCain on Tuesday expressed support for the plan to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, but said he objected to setting a date for an exit strategy to begin as early as 2011.

“Dates for withdrawal are dictated by conditions,” Mr. McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. “The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving.”

He is correct.  He could have been president.  But we were sold a lemon by the establishment press, and the sale went through because of a suspiciously timed economic collapse, right in the middle of a presidential campaign. 

There are people in national politics who want us to lose in Afghanistan.  They are the same people who opposed the surge in Iraq.  And they are, in some cases, older versions of the same people who wanted us to lose in Vietnam.  They think it's good for us.  And they don't think 9-11 was a big deal.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

R.I.P. TOMMY - AT 6:20 P.M. ET: 

Tommy Henrich, the right fielder known as Old Reliable who helped propel the Yankees to seven World Series championships, died on Tuesday in Dayton, Ohio. He was 96.

His death was announced by the Yankees.

Playing with the Yankees for 11 seasons, Henrich proved a timely hitter, an outstanding defensive player and a leader who epitomized the image of the classy Yankee who was nearly always a winner.

COMMENT:  There are certain deaths that make those of us of a certain age pause for a moment.  As a fanatical Brooklyn Dodger fan, growing up in Brooklyn, I loathed Tommy Henrich.  The guy was that good.  I remember, during one World Series, snapping off a brown Emerson tube table radio in a rage as Henrich got a critical hit against my boys.

R.I.P. Tommy.  You did good, even if it was for the wrong team.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

SUPPORT FOR IRAN - AT 6:01 P.M. ET:  Iran feels it can be defiant about its nuclear program, and here is one reason:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, meanwhile, said Tuesday that more dialogue, not sanctions, was needed to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program. His words came after Teheran announced Sunday that it plans to build 10 more uranium enrichment facilities

Speaking at a press conference, the Chinese spokesperson said that sanctions "are not the goal" of renewed UN pressure on Iran. "We should properly resolve this issue through dialogue," he said. "All parties should step up diplomatic efforts."

COMMENT:  As the Brits say, "Hello?"  The entire sanctions strategy of the Obama administration is based on getting the Russians and Chinese aboard.  We need their votes in the UN Security Council, and each has a veto. 

If China doesn't go along with new sanctions, our strategy is sunk, and there's nothing we can do to China. 

Very tough decisions coming.  Very tough.  The Air Force has ordered new bunker-busting bombs for delivery in the spring.  And a very well informed source in the American military told me recently that "we may have work to do" in Iran.

If the Iranians believe that, they might act differently.  But when an American president projects weakness, we get the fist in return.

December 1, 2009   Permalink 

WHEN WILL WE GET THIS MESSAGE? - AT 5:51 P.M. ET:  Iran keeps telling us what it really believes, and we never seem to believe it.  What part of this doesn't Barack Obama understand?  From the Jerusalem Post and AP:

Iran continued snubbing the world Tuesday, two days after defiantly announcing a decision to build ten uranium enrichment facilities in the face of international condemnation of its lack of transparency in dealing with the IAEA.

"Iran's nuclear issue has been resolved ... We will hold no talks (with major powers) over this issue. There is no need for talks," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday, in a televised interview communicated by the Reuters news agency.

"Talking about isolating Iran (over its nuclear work) is a psychological war launched by the West ... Iran is a unique country ... and no country can isolate it," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

COMMENT:  In other words, the negotiations are over. 

And what will our response be?  Well, the president is getting a hostile reaction from his party's Lenin-was-misunderstood wing over Afghanistan.  Does he want to take on this crowd again over Iran?  I suspect our first response will be disappointment and a letter to the editor.

As we've written here, many chickens are coming home to roost.  This country is in danger, and the American people, in poll after poll, are questioning the president's leadership.  Fortunately, we are entering an election year, when the people can send a message stronger than a Gallup response.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

MADNESS IN ACTION - AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  If you doubt that there is real madness in some parts of our educational system, please read on:  There was a time when the New York City school system was revered for its quality.  Teachers, mostly Irish, taught students of all backgrounds.  Those teachers took great pride in their work.  They had prestige.  They had gone through a rigorous selection process.  The description "New York City teacher" meant something. 

I spent my early years in that system.  We had teachers who could diagram an English sentence.  Now, some students are lucky to have a teacher who can write one.

And while there are still many gems in the New York City system, some of the newer schools are positively off the wall.  Consider:

A growing number of city schools aim to foster resentment and rage among the most uneducated students. Under the guise of "social justice," the fomenting of racial and socio-economic grievances has supplanted the teaching of basic skills. The result is an even wider gap in learning between the poorest minorities and other students.

And get this:

The corruption of the curriculum is getting harder to conceal. In the wake of the ACORN scandals, it's more obviously problematic that ACORN is affiliated with three city schools -- including two in Brooklyn bearing the group's name: ACORN Community HS and the ACORN HS for Social Justice.

Can you imagine the football cheer?

But teacher activism goes far beyond ACORN. Social justice is the guiding academic principle of more than a dozen city high schools, particularly in the newer crop of smaller schools started by community groups.

* On the home page of Bushwick Community HS, you'll find a large illustration of Che Guevara wearing a graduation cap.

* Last year, the principal of Vanguard HS in Manhattan hosted a "radical math" conference at his school. The event, according to the program, featured a presentation by a teacher at Performing Arts & Technology HS about "how to use the history of the Black Panther Party to fuel an algebraic curriculum."

* At Banana Kelly HS in The Bronx, the social-justice agenda has extended into its discipline policy. The school is experimenting with "restorative justice" techniques -- in which misbehaving or truant students aren't punished but instead asked to participate in trust-building exercises to help them "acknowledge their feelings."

Wait.  Stop the music.  Banana Kelly High School?  Who the hell is Banana Kelly?  This one I haven't heard.

All right, I looked it up.  It's actually a street.  Colin Powell grew up nearby and talks about it in his autobiography.

And the city's response to the lunacy in some of its schools:

A spokesman for the city Education Department waved off any concern: "We don't submit schools to political tests. We ask them instead to teach our students to be avid learners and critical thinkers, and we hold them accountable for how well they do that."

Translation: It's not our problem.

COMMENT:  This kind of educational corruption is spreading.  We'll write more about it.

December 1, 2009    Permalink

THE PEOPLE'S VERDICT - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  It is simply remarkable to watch how this administration pursues policies that are unpopular with the public.  Recently, the attorney general, Eric Holder, announced that the mastermind of 9-11 will be tried in an ordinary civilian courtroom in new York City.  The Gallup organization asked Americans what they think of this:

PRINCETON, NJ -- By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.

That's a 23-point difference.  Not even close.

Once again, though, the Democrats show just how far to the left their party has gone.  Some 51% of Dems favor the civilian courts.  Compare this to 22% of Republicans, and, most important, 32% of independents.

The Democrats are isolating themselves from the majority of Americans. 

Holder's decision was terrible, and there are moves to have it reversed.  Debra Burlingame, whose brother was captain of the American Airlines jet that was flown into the Pentagon on 9-11, writes:

I am one of the organizers of a rally being held at noon this Saturday in Foley Square to stop President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and members of Congress from bringing sworn enemies of the United States into this country - from bringing war criminals captured on the battlefield, lawfully held as war detainees, into civilian court.

Foley Square is the location of the United States Court House in Manhattan, where the trial will be held.

It doesn't have to happen. We who are opposed to the decision must make ourselves perfectly clear to the powers that be that we will not tolerate this decision.

And Debra, whom I've met, and who is terrific, has sterner words for our attorney general than have come out of the mouth of any Republican:

The attorney general has suggested that those who oppose prosecuting these men here in New York City are afraid - that we somehow don't have the courage to face Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in court.

How dare this man, who didn't have the decency to notify victims' families of his decision to bring these monsters here, imply that we lack courage. Courage is carrying on after watching your loved ones die, in real time, knowing that they burned to death, were crushed to death, or jumped from 100 flights high. Courage is carrying on, even as we waited, in some cases years, for something of our loved ones to bury. More than 1,100 families still wait.

Great piece.  Read the whole thing.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA MADE HIS OWN BED - AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  Journalists write about President Obama's "dilemma" in Afghanistan, but the fact is that he made his own bed.  He made Afghanistan a "war of necessity" in a cynical attempt, during the 2008 campaign, to distance himself from the Iraq War, which he'd condemned, and yet appear responsible on national security.  Byron York, in an excellent reporting piece in the Washington Examiner, explains:

At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.

Results of a recent Gallup poll:

Fifty-seven percent of Democrats want to reduce the number of troops, and another 10 percent want to see troop levels remain the same. That’s 67 percent — two-thirds — of Democrats who want the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to go down, or at least go no higher. Which means two-thirds of Democrats likely oppose the president’s decision to send more troops.

An explanation:

And yet, in the 2008 presidential season, from the Democratic primaries to the general election, Democrats felt required to promise to step up the war in Afghanistan. Was it because the Democratic base that now opposes escalation supported it back then? No. A Gallup poll in August 2007 — in the midst of the Democratic primary race — found that just 41 percent of Democrats supported sending more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan.

If the base didn’t support it, then why did candidates promise it? Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game. Nearly all of them hated the war in Iraq and wanted to pull Americans out of that country. But they were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support. Many of them didn’t, really, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy.

Incredible cynicism.  But it reflects the notion proposed by the Marxist scholar Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s, that the truth is what supports "progressive" causes. 

...now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

A folk singer in 1960 called this "puttin' on the agony, puttin' on the style."

Mr. Obama, Byron York writes...

...had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

COMMENT:  One of the big mistakes made by journalists today is to label the left-wing Democrats in Congress, especially the House, as "liberals."  They are not liberals.  They are leftists.  Liberals traditionally took a responsible stand on national security.  Hubert Humphrey was a liberal.  So was Henry Jackson.  So was Paul Douglas.  Leftists don't care much about national security, living the illusion that foreign threats are manufactured by the "industrial-military complex." 

Barbara Lee, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is not a liberal.  A fan of Fidel Castro, she's a leftist.  So is Dennis Kucinich.  So are many others.  Liberals would be offended to be associated with them.

December 1, 2009   Permalink

THE SPEECH - AT 8:36 A.M. ET:  We are now about 12 hours away from President Obama's speech on Afghanistan, surely a defining moment for his administration.

The key question is no longer whether he'll send more troops to the war zone.  He will.  The key question is the overall tone of the speech.  Will there be a will to win?  A real strategy?  Or is the president simply pursuing a temporary holding action to avoid being accused, before the 2012 election, of "losing" Afghanistan?

Already there are worries.  The White House, in press statements, is emphasizing, not the need to win in Afghanistan, however that's defined, but how we get out.  That is, of course, the wrong message to send to the enemy.

And how will Mr. Obama describe that enemy?  Will he finally succumb to the truth and describe it as Islamic and extremist, and put those words together?  Or will he persist in the myth that there is nothing to justify any association between Islam and violence? 

Will Obama blame Bush for our plight, as he has done so many times?  Or will he take command?

Some readers have suggested that this speech is all a cynical exercise.  They argue the possibility that Mr. Obama knows that the left-wing Democrats in Congress will block funding for the war, replaying the Vietnam playbook, and that he'll get out of the problem that way, all the while claiming that he did what he could, but that Congress tied his hands.  While there's a very real chance that Congress will try to block funding, or impose new and unpopular taxes to pay for the war, I doubt if that is figuring in the president's announcement.  If Congress succeeded in blocking funding, going against Barack Obama, the president would, after all, look like a weak fool.  I doubt if he plans on that.

Another intriguing question:  Will Obama pull a Truman?  President Truman realized he had a problem with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and essentially read it out of the party in 1948.  Its leader, Henry Wallace, then ran against him on the Progressive ticket, the Progressive Party being a front for the old red groups.  At some point Mr. Obama must realize that the left is doing him far more harm than good, and that moving to the center is necessary for his own survival.  How soon, though, will he realize it?

Frankly, I don't think he has the spine that Harry Truman had. 

So we wait.  Urgent Agenda will be blogging live through the speech.  As always, we hope that the president makes a wise decision for the nation.  And, as always, we don't expect all that much.

December 1,  2009   Pemalink 

MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 30,  2009

THE END FOR GE AND NBC? - AT 9:46 P.M. ET:  According to The New York Times, the way has probably been cleared for the sale of NBC Universal to Comcast:

General Electric has reached a tentative agreement to buy Vivendi’s 20 percent stake in NBC Universal for about $5.8 billion, helping clear the path to a sale of the television and movie company to Comcast, people briefed on the matter told DealBook.

But much remains to be negotiated, these people warned. The Vivendi agreement values NBC Universal at $29 billion, less than the $30 billion or so that G.E. and Comcast had agreed to last month.

Harmonizing the two values, as in so much of the talks over NBC Universal, may take days to do. But people briefed on the matter said the companies are aiming to announce a completed deal by Thursday.

COMMENT:  It is virtually impossible to predict the impact of this on the entertainment industry or the general public.  Broadcasters and movie studios are delicate mechanisms, where talent, flair, hype and business sense combine to produce either flops, hits, or, usually, something in between. 

GE should never have owned NBC.  Its management of NBC has often been uninspired, and GE is a major defense contractor owning an equally major news operation, which is an inherent conflict of interest.   That news operation, NBC News, has lost a great deal of its luster over the years.  One mission of Comcast must be to restore its status, or sell it to someone else, which I think is quite possible.

Comcast is currently a transmitter, not, to use the awful and trendy term, a "content provider."  It knows nothing of providing content (which we used to call drama, comedy and news).  So don't be shocked if, after the highly publicized acquisition, we see the same old Hollywood faces back in action.  Hollywood is a place where people fail upward, getting better jobs no matter how poorly they've done in the previous ones.  Some Hollywood types justify this by claiming that failure gives one "experience."  Under that logic, Hollywood is the most experienced place in the world.

Hollywood also has a powerful establishment, made up of a continuing group of agents, lawyers, financiers, and executives who will try to capture Comcast as quickly as possible.  They may succeed.

I hope Comcast knows what it's getting into.  To call someone a shark in Hollywood is a compliment.  We wish Comcast well, if its deal goes through.  We hope it improves both NBC and Universal, and that its ulcers are below the average number.

November 30, 2009   Permalink   

THE ORDERS GO OUT - AT 7:34 P.M. ET:  The only thing we know specifically about the president's Afghan strategy, to be announced tomorrow night, is that it's driving the left crazy.  For that the president deserves at least one hand clapping.  We'll give him the other one if he delivers a winning strategy, and backs it up.  The Washington Post reports:

President Obama has informed his senior advisers of his Afghanistan war strategy decision and ordered his commanders on the ground there to begin carrying out the plan.

Speaking Monday to reporters at the White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama met Sunday evening in the Oval Office with Vice President Biden; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Gen. David H. Petraeus, chief of U.S. Central Command; national security adviser James L. Jones; and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sounds reasonable, until you get to this:

According to advisers, Obama intends to outline the escalation and an exit strategy in the Tuesday speech, which is likely to run roughly 40 minutes. Gibbs reiterated Monday that Obama "will make clear this is not an open-ended commitment."

Huh?  Is that part of a strategy, or part of an attempt to appease the Nancy Pelosi Lightning Brigade?  If Obama signals a will to win, he might make some progress and convince those of us who've been critical.  But if he provides the enemy with, essentially, a timetable for withdrawal, he will just compound his problems.  The enemy has all the time in the world, and they can wait us out. 

For Barack Obama, this is a critical moment, a moment when America will learn what he's really made of.  So far, he has been a weak, vague and indecisive leader.  Let us see if he's capable of change we can believe in.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

THE DOUBLE STANDARD - AT 6:02 P.M. ET:  Once again we see the double standard - one standard for the West, especially the United States, and another standard for Islam.  From The New York Times:

GENEVA — Switzerland’s political leaders on Monday faced a chorus of criticism at home and abroad over an overwhelming popular vote to ban construction of minarets.

The referendum, which took place Sunday, has propelled the country to the forefront of a European debate on how far countries should go to assimilate Muslim immigrants and Islamic culture.

Government ministers trying to contain the fallout from the vote voiced shock and disappointment with a result that the Swiss establishment newspaper Le Temps called a “brutal sign of hostility” to Muslims that was “inspired by fear, fantasy and ignorance.”

The country’s justice minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, said the vote was not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture, but reflected fears among the population.

With support for the ban from 57.5 percent of voters, however, ministers were forced to acknowledge that they had failed to quell popular anxieties about the impact of what right-wing parties have portrayed as “creeping Islamization.”

COMMENT:  Oh, double double, toil and trouble.  All this anguish.

First, maybe there's a reason for popular anxiety, like a bit of bother over honor killings, terrorism, and sheer hatred coming from some elements among Muslim immigrants.

Second, maybe some of the "establishments" of Europe would have a bit more street cred if they condemned the horrible bigotry that is routine in much of the Muslim world.  The anti-Christian and anti-Semitic stuff is churned out like rivets.  And yet we are supposed to "understand" this "cultural difference." 

I personally think the vote has disturbing aspects because of what it can lead to down the road.  Europe, after all, doesn't have a great track record in the treatment of minorities.  But this is a classic case of chickens coming home to roost.  The smug "sophisticates" of Europe, indifferent to the legitimate concerns of ordinary people about the beliefs and practices of some Muslim groups, and trying ever so hard to understand the "root causes" of Muslim hostility, didn't even see this coming. 

My fear is that actions here, like the recent decision to try the mastermind of 9-11 in a civilian court, reflect just the kind of thinking we find among the blind elites of Europe.  We should be warned.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

NOT EXACTLY ENCOURAGING - AT 4:54 P.M. ET:  Terrorism targeted at nuclear plants is the kind of thing we don't take seriously until it happens, or almost happens.  This story from India, a nuclear power, reminds us of the need for vigilance:

THE deliberate contamination of a water cooler at an Indian atomic energy plant has raised serious security concerns, just two weeks after the country's nuclear installations were placed on high alert because of a suspected terror threat.

India's nuclear officials were in damage control last night over the breach, in which an employee is believed to have contaminated a staff water cooler with a radioactive isotope which, when purified, is used as a trigger in thermo-nuclear bombs.

With debate raging over the potential for Pakistan's nuclear weapons to fall into malevolent hands, the Indian security breach will raise further questions over nuclear safety in the region.

The contamination was detected last week at the Kaiga nuclear power plant in the southern Indian state of Karnataka when routine urine samples found that 55 workers at the site had unusually high levels of radioactivity in their bodies.

It was eventually traced to a water cooler outside the nuclear power plant's "operating island".

But the safety breach became public on Sunday night only when the country's Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar admitted an investigation was under way into the act of sabotage, suspected to have been committed by an insider.

COMMENT:  This is India, a relatively stable, reasonably modern country.  Pakistan, next door, is in perpetual chaos.  Its nuclear weapons are stored in one of the most unstable parts of the country.  We have a critical interest - a direct, personal interest - in maintaining the security of the Pakistani arsenal, security that would be threatened if Afghanistan, next door, falls into the wrong hands. 

Notice the level of interest in this threat within the left wing of the Democratic Party.  If you give me a week, I might be able to find it.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

DID I READ THIS RIGHT? - AT 11:34 A.M. ET:  Apparently I did, and maybe it's a sign of the times.  Jon Meacham, the editor of the very liberal Newsweek, is pushing the idea of Dick Cheney running for president in 2012.  No, I'm not kidding.  It's here:

I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

Well, I must say I'm numb.  Will Jon Meacham ever be invited to a proper Manhattan party again?  Is his name currently being removed from Rolodexes all over Martha's Vineyard?

A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way. As John McCain pointed out in the fall of 2008, he is not Bush. Nor is Cheney, but the former vice president would make the case for the harder-line elements of the Bush world view. Far from fading away, Cheney has been the voice of the opposition since the inauguration.

Liberal psychiatrists are rushing to Meacham's office as I write.

No one foresaw Cheney's reemergence as a force in the politics of the 21st century until it happened. So perhaps the pattern is set, a pattern of insistent denial of interest—until it turns out that, hey, he is interested. Cheney's memoirs are due to be published—and thus due to be promoted—in the spring of 2011, not long before the caucuses and primaries begin. I'll bet you that the Barnes & Noble in Des Moines (there's a big one at The Shoppes at Three Fountains) is on the book tour.

I hope it is. 

Look, Cheney has a bad heart condition, and I don't think he'll be running.  But the fact that the idea can be presented seriously by a serious person is inspiring.  Maybe there are elements of the mainstream media that are starting to realize that the last administration had great virtues, and among them were the strong and clear convictions of Dick Cheney.

I hope, though, that if Cheney surprises us and runs, Obamacare is already in place, for the liberals will need a great deal of medication.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

THE NOT-SO-GREAT-MAN LEAVES - AT 10:35 A.M. ET:  The Wall Street Journal marks the departure of the failed head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose failures got him the Nobel Peace Prize.  Sound familiar?

Mohamed ElBaradei caps his contentious and ultimately failed 12-year stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency today, having spent many years enabling Iran's nuclear bids only to condemn them in his final days in office. Mr. ElBaradei combined his rebuke of Iran with his familiar calls for more negotiation, but we'll take his belated realism about Iran as his tacit admission that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have been right all along. Let's hope the education of the Obama Administration doesn't take as long.

Yes, it's time to agree that Cheney and Bolton, both despised by the American left and its disciples in the press, have been right all along.  However, I don't think you'll see that concession in the press.  My experience has been that the media will happily correct a minor mistake, to prove its "responsibility," but will rarely correct a major one.  The reporting of the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, in which Americans were told that a decisive military victory was actually a defeat, has never been corrected by any mainstream publication or broadcast outlet.

"Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, but the West has said this many times before. Earlier this year, Mr. Obama said Iran had a deadline of September.

The Iranian regime is laughing all the way to the reactor building.

"A few years ago [the West] said we had to completely stop all our nuclear activities," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last month. "Now look where we are today."

And the great facilitator has been Mohamed ElBaradei, who always urged more negotiations in the face of overwhelming evidence that negotiations with Iran accomplished nothing.  Of course, our deeply experienced and sophisticated president bought the negotiations line entirely.

Those are the words of a man who believes he has Mr. Obama's number. And until the President, his advisers and the Europeans realize that only punitive sanctions or military strikes will force it to reconsider its nuclear ambitions, an emboldened Islamic Republic will continue to march confidently toward a bomb over the wreckage of Mohamed ElBaradei's—and Barack Obama's—best intentions.

Well said.  Iran, even more than Afghanistan, will be a test for Obama - a test of whether he lives in the real world, and whether his party will allow him to function in that world.  Hang onto your seatbelts.  It's going to be a bumpy year.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

HONDURAS VOTES - AT 9:41 A.M. ET:  Honduras held its much-anticipated presidential election yesterday.  It seemed legitimate and proper, and a conservative won...which means that in the eyes of some people it couldn't possibly have been legitimate.  From The Wall Street Journal:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras -- A conservative rancher named Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo took the Honduran presidency in elections Sunday, five months after the country's last elected president was forced out of the country at gunpoint. Now Hondurans must wait to see if the international community, which has been divided over the crisis, accepts the winner as legitimate.

The results gave Mr. Lobo 56% of the vote, well ahead of Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos at 38%, confirming voters' expected punishment of the Liberals -- party of both the deposed president and the interim government that ousted him.

That's an awfully persuasive victory, don't you think?

While the small Central American nation is expected to get crucial support from the U.S., it will likely continue to face opposition from regional heavyweights such as Brazil and Argentina. The U.S., in agreeing to accept the winner, is now in a delicate position -- with Brazil, for example, which is housing exiled leader Manuel Zelaya in its Honduran embassy and recognizes him as president.

Brazil's president hosted the president of Iran this last week.  The Brazilian regime associates with only the best people.

Note this:

About 61% of Hondurans voted, and turnout, which was up from 2005, was seen as a crucial factor in persuading more countries to back the vote. The turnout was a loss for Mr. Zelaya, who had urged supporters to boycott the election. After the vote, Mr. Zelaya condemned the elections on CNN saying: "Absenteeism triumphed. ... These elections don't correct the coup d'etat."

Zelaya is an ally of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.  He gets support from some of the leftist regimes in Latin America and from the usual suspects here.  Apparently the Honduran people are less enthusiastic.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

REMARKABLE - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone reports on a survey that reveals the extent of the president's political problems.  From the Washington Examiner:

It’s not too early, apparently, to test opinion on the 2012 presidential race. Pollster Scott Rasmussen has asked likely voters to decide between Barack Obama and three reasonably well-known Republicans, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. He also asked about their preferences in three-way pairings between those candidates and recently-resigned CNN commentator Lou Dobbs. There are three interesting findings.

Number one. Obama is essentially tied with all three Republicans, leading Huckabee 45%-41% and Palin 46%-43% and even with Romney at 44%-44%. In other words, Obama is running at his job approval rating level, which Rasmussen has at 46%-54%. This is reminiscent of the 2004 general election, in which George W. Bush’s 51% of the vote mirrored his job approval numbers.

And...

I don’t think these numbers are anything like a reliable indicator of how the 2012 election cycle will unfold; they’re more like a referendum on Obama today, and not a particularly complimentary one. But it’s interesting that three Republican politicians, each with his or her own liabilities, are still running about even with Obama.

COMMENT:  It's true that Rasmussen surveys do tend to show Republicans slightly higher than some other polls.  But, even taking that into consideration, these are extraordinary numbers.  They give encouragement to us for 2010, if the Republicans can get over their love of defeat and get to work.

November 30, 2009   Permalink

A MOMENTOUS WEEK - AT 8:40 A.M. ET

This will probably be the most momentous week of the Obama presidency.

Consider:  First, The Senate begins debate today on the president's signature domestic initiative - a health "reform" bill that is a mess to start with, is facing increasing public opposition, and can't get a consensus within Obama's own party in the Senate.  Great leadership, Barack.

Second, the president makes his already-famous speech on Afghanistan tomorrow, laying out his divine vision for the future of that country and our involvement in it.  He has waited to long to decide, losing the confidence of the defense establishment and depressing morale, not only in our own military, but among our allies.  Further, his own party, especially in the House, is already against him on this crucial decision.  There are already warnings that the left may try to cut off funding, Vietnam style, for the war.  There are warnings from the other side that his presumed strategy isn't a strategy at all, but a political compromise designed only to minimize opposition until he can figure a way out of the war.  More great leadership, Barack.

Third, Iran is coming home to roost.  With its announcement yesterday that it will be starting ten new nuclear plants, Iran, bottom line, has signaled the end of negotiations, unless we make major concessions.  Yet the strongest statement about Iran's continued, outrageous defiance came not from the United States, but from France.  Obama has been so pathetically weak on Iran that the Europeans look like Army Rangers by comparison.  Our entire Iran policy consists of Hillary Clinton threatening "crippling" sanctions, which, so far, no one has agreed to outside her immediate household.  Nice going, Barack. 

The president is in serious trouble.  The internet is filled with articles, both foreign and domestic, reporting that citizens, and governments, have lost confidence in him.  His belief in his own mystical powers, and his own mouth, was clearly misplaced.  He has gotten nothing done.  And, while he could probably win a "king of the senior prom" contest, he can win little more.  His approval rating in some polls has dropped below 50%.  That's not exactly Biblical prophet territory. 

Can Obama redeem himself? 

It is true that many presidents get off to a rocky start.  Reagan's first year was uneven, and he dropped in the polls.  Kennedy's first year was a foreign-policy disaster.  Reagan went on to greatness.  Kennedy righted himself in his second year. 

But Obama is neither Reagan nor Kennedy.  He is a leftist, something now obvious to the public if not to CNN, and yet his greatest opponent may turn out to be the left wing of his party, which is warning him about straying. 

Yet, stray he must.  He must learn from Reagan, and from FDR before Reagan, that no president can become a captive of his party and expect to lead effectively.  We remember Reagan as a great conservative.  Yet, he was careful to maintain a correct distance between himself and the movement, allowing him flexibility in governing. 

Obama's speech at West Point tomorrow night will give some hint of whether he's grown in office, or is simply a small Chicago politician in a job too big for him.  Will he rise to the challenge, or begin his journey to the dustbin of history? 

We'll watch, we'll blog live, we'll see.

November 30,  2009   Permalink