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.

APRIL 7,  2011

UH, EXCUSE ME? – AT 9:13 P.M. ET:  Did someone not get the memo?

WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Please tell the president what the new strategy is.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

I'm so tired of hearing about the need for Arab support.  These people never support us in the end, no matter how much we help them.  They don't know the meaning of "thank you."

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

Running a NATO operation without America is like staffing a football team with 5'5" Hollywood agents.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Muammar Qaddafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

New tactic?  Really?  Haven't the Israeli been pointing this out for years?  Of course, when they do, they're ridiculed by the usual leftist suspects.

Oh, get this:

WASHINGTON — The United States is scaling back its role in the international military operation against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and will not be sending U.S. troops into the war-stricken North African nation “as long as I’m in this job,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Thursday.

COMMENT:  Who do we believe here?  Does the president have a policy?

April 7, 2011       Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 8:32 P.M. ET: 

From the Boston Globe:  Saying that sugary drinks have caused rising obesity among city residents and driven up health care costs, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino today moved to ban the sale, advertising, and promotion of the drinks on all city property.

The nanny state is alive and well.  Maybe someone should inform the mayor that it's not the sugary drinks that cause obesity, but their abuse.  Once again the individual is let off the hook.  It's those colorful soda cans.  That's what it is!

April 7, 2011      Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS – THE GOP CHALLENGE – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  The numbers may not be great for the president, but a new Fox poll shows he actually gained ground when respondents were asked whether he deserved reelection:

Forty-four percent of American voters think President Obama deserves to be re-elected, while slightly more -- 48 percent -- think the country would be better off with someone else, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.

In December, when the Fox poll last asked that question, 35 percent of voters said he deserved to win re-election, while a 53 percent majority disagreed.

The bump in Obama’s re-elect number comes mainly from Democrats: 78 percent think he deserves re-election now compared to 67 percent who thought so in December. About one in six Democrats (16 percent) think the country would be better off with someone else as president.

Most Republicans (83 percent) and half of independents (51 percent) don’t think Obama deserves re-election.

COMMENT:  Once again we see how quickly this president, with his political and oratorical skills, and the support of a loving press, can recover.  I'm worried that only 51% of independents think the president doesn't deserve reelection. 

Yes, it's true, these numbers don't put Barack Obama back in the White House, but they certainly don't keep him far away.  It will be a difficult fight, and Dem scare tactics ("The Republicans will take away your food and babies") are already starting.  The blatant ethnic appeals sounded yesterday by the president and his supporters are another part of the mix.  Appearing before a group run by Al Sharpton was not presidential, but it was smooth politics for a president whose base is very powerful.

April 7, 2011     Permalink

OUR BRILLIANT FOREIGN POLICY – AT 9:40 A.M. ET:   I have no brief for the Saudi regime, but, realistically, Saudi Arabia is an important associate, if not ally, of the United States.  It's the oil, brother.  And, of course, Obama is damaging our affiliation with the Saudis, almost as much as he's wreaked havoc with our alliance with Israel.  Consider:

CNSNews.com) – Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq yesterday, NBC’s Tom Brokaw said the Saudi Arabian monarchy is “so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt” that it has sent senior officials to the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia to seek expanded business opportunities with those countries.

After remarking on the difficulty of establishing democracy in the Middle East, Brokaw said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates “will face some tough questions in this region about the American intentions going on now with all this new turmoil, especially in an area where the United States has such big stakes politically and economically.”

“And a lot of those questions presumably will come from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia,” reported Brokaw on the Nightly News. “I was told on the way in here that the Saudis are so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt that it sent high level emissaries to China and Russia to tell those two countries that Saudi Arabia now is prepared to do more business with them.”

COMMENT:  Another famous victory.  Hey, isn't the guy earning that Nobel Peace Prize?  It's been noted that Obama seems much more enthusiastic about dissing American allies than enemies.  Yeah, he's going after Gadaffi, kind of.  If we really went after him, the Libyan action would have taken one day.  As of now, we've essentially withdrawn from combat missions in Libya, Gadaffi remains in power, and the entire mission is entirely muddled.

If I were the Saudi king I'd be pretty roiled as well.  Obama has a long history of throwing friends under the bus, the same bus powered by Saudi oil.  It's been rumored that an even bigger bus is being sent to the White House to accommodate all those thrown under in time for the 2012 campaign. 

Our foreign policy is a mess and a failure.  Our energy policy is resulting in soaring fuel prices.  Our national spending is out of control.

Happy days are here again.

April 7, 2011      Permalink

WILL LIBYA ACTION LEAD TO TERROR HERE? – AT 9:18 A.M. ET:  That question is being seriously asked in Washington, and the FBI director, who will be departing this year, is attempting to answer.  From Fox:

The U.S. homeland is "on guard" for terrorist attacks "emanating" out of war-torn Libya, as Libyan operatives "may well" be in the United States after possibly crossing into the United States illegally from Mexico or Canada, according to the head of the FBI.

That assessment came one day after the FBI confirmed it was contacting Libyan nationals living in and visiting the United States in an effort to "determine whether there is a threat to Americans." Testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller offered more details about his agency's efforts.

He said the FBI wants to "make certain" the U.S. government has sufficient information "that may bear on what is happening in Libya," including the identities and aims of rebel forces fighting to topple Muammar Qaddafi's brutal regime.

"We also want to make certain that we are on guard [for] the possibility of terrorist attacks emanating somewhere out of Libya, whether it be Qaddafi's forces or, in eastern Libya, the opposition forces who may have amongst them persons who in the past have had associations with terrorist groups," Mueller said. He noted that coalition forces are still trying to figure out exactly who is part of Libya's rebel forces.

Nevertheless, Mueller said intelligence officers from Libya "may well" be part of "establishments" in countries outside Libya, or "there may be intelligence officers that are operating with different types of cover in the United States."

COMMENT:  Another reason to be on guard.  This report joins others this week indicating a growing Al Qaeda presence in Latin America.  It may not only be illegal immigrants who are slipping across our southern border.

April 7, 2011       Permalink

RYAN RISES – AT 8:57 A.M. ET:  Clearly the star player in Washington this week is Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, who unveiled a bold, lay-it-on-the-line budget this week, risking the demagoguery and smears that are bound to follow anyone who upsets the proverbial apple cart.  From Fox:

He's a rising star on the right and a growing target on the left.

Washington is buzzing about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's take-no-prisoners approach to budget cuts -- manifested in his budget proposal that would slash federal spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years and overhaul health programs for the elderly and poor.

As Congress wages an epic budget battle that threatens this weekend to shut down the federal government for the first time in 15 years, Ryan's willingness to offer specifics on how to tame deficits and preserve the American safety net is boosting his profile among Republicans and stirring speculation that he may be on the short list of GOP vice presidential contenders.

"I think that Paul Ryan is the brightest light in the Republican Party right now," said former Sen. Bob Kasten, a fellow Wisconsin Republican who once employed Ryan. "And the courage he's shown is unlike anyone in Washington today, including the president."

"Whether for president or vice president or for further leadership in Congress, he's on everyone's list," he said, adding that the choice would be up to him.

COMMENT:  We don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, but Bill Kristol is proposing a Ryan-Rubio ticket for 2012.  It is true that both men are young, and a bit thin in the experience department, but Democrats will have a hard time using the experience factor in 2012, given the fact that Obama ran in 2008, with a resumé so thin it could give you a paper cut. 

Ryan reminds me somewhat of Jack Kennedy.  He has that style and assertiveness.  Not bad things to have if you're engaging in high political combat.  Watch this guy closely.

April 7, 2011      Permalink

OBAMA SLIPS AGAIN – AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  Very much a surprise.  Andrew Malcom at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog reports that President Obama's support among blacks and Hispanics, two solid pillars of his political base, is slipping:

...this morning comes the most troubling political news for Obama's four-day-old reelection campaign:

His job approval among blacks is sliding.

Once monolithic, blacks' support for the first African American president is still....

....immense. But for unclear reasons it's declined about 7% from well above 90% to 85% in March. That's a new low since Obama's inauguration 26 months ago.

Equally ominous for Obama in 2012, his approval among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing demographic, has also fallen to again tie his term low of 54%. That's a drop of 11 points from its early high of 65%.

Gallup seems puzzled by the unexpected decline, mentioning March's major news as possible reasons: the ongoing fight with Congress over no fiscal 2011 federal budget and Obama leading the country into a new military combat zone over Libya.

COMMENT:  I would imagine that black support for Obama will solidify during the election campaign.  There's a matter of group loyalty involved.  But if Republicans can seriously dent Hispanic support, that could be real news, and a couple of real states.

The Hispanic community is far more diverse than many imagine, and there is every reason why conservatives should pursue the Hispanic vote.  This effort would be helped by the act of putting a Hispanic star on the national ticket – someone like Marco Rubio of Florida or Susanna Martinez, the governor of New Mexico.  And I wouldn't be surprised.

April 7, 2011     Permalink

APRIL 6,  2011

A TRUMPING WE WILL GO – AT 10:51 P.M. ET:  A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Donald Trump second among Republican primary voters.

Now, is that just name recognition, or what?  I think it's more.  Trump, not known for his skills in international politics or governmental leadership, has clearly caught on with a segment of Republicans who may be looking for an alternative to the usual field of candidates.  Recall that Ross Perot had that same appeal in 1992.  The votes Perot received in the general election that year were critical to defeating incumbent President George H.W. Bush and electing Bill Clinton.

And there may well be something else.  Trump says things that other people think.  He has brought up the Obama birth-certificate issue, something not considered proper in respectable circles.  But many Americans, including those who assume the president was born in Hawaii when he says he was, still wonder why Mr. Obama won't release his long-form birth certificate, which contains detailed information.  Trump discusses this in a common-sense, guy-in-the-corner-bar way.  If someone doesn't release something, Trump says, he's probably hiding something.  And on this, Trump is right.

Trump claimed today that he has investigators working in Hawaii and that they have discovered disturbing things.  Now Trump can be blowing smoke.  He's good at that.  But he could be dead serious.  If he opens up this can of worms, and it turns out to be a can of worms, he can suddenly emerge as a political hero to the right.  In this, Trump may be tapping deep suspicions about Obama in at least a part of the electorate. 

And even though I'm not a "birther," I, too, have wondered why Obama doesn't release his birth certificate.  Maybe he should, for I can almost imagine Donald Trump holding a copy up in a televised news conference and announcing, "I have here in my hand..."

April 6, 2011       Permalink

WHAT A FARCE – AT 9:48 P.M. ET:  One of the great lines you hear from Hollywood schemers is, "My hands are tied."  You know, sorry about the situation, but I can't do anything about it.  It's almost never true. 

Now President Obama gives us the political version of that.  High gasoline prices?  Oh, that's really too bad, but my hands are tied:

Obama cautioned that it's going to be tough to transition from America's oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there's little he can do to lower gasoline prices over the short term.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now," the president told workers at a wind turbine plant outside Philadelphia.

It's a theme Obama's struck before as he tries to show voters he's attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.

Obama said he wants to move toward "a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you." That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind, the president says. He has set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025.

But the president said it won't happen overnight and if any politician says it's easy, "they're not telling the truth."

"Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect," Obama said.

COMMENT:  Well, let's see.  Obama can start a crash program to increase domestic production of petroleum, including offshore drilling, but that might offend the enviro-nuts who are part of his base.  Of course the enviro-nuts don't understand that people are part of the environment, and people plunged into poverty don't give us a healthy world.

The fact is that there are people around Obama who like high gasoline prices because it will discourage people from driving, something of a sin in their little paradise.

We have enough domestic oil to take care of our needs, as we gradually transition to newer fuels.  But that oil hasn't been tapped, largely because of government policy.  So an entire generation must be financially strained because of the left's political and economic theories. 

But the president's hands are tied.

April 6, 2011     Permalink

SPIRITED CHOICE – AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  As you know, I don't think Obama is much of a president, but his political operation has always been first class.  It's gotten even better with Chicago's Bill Daley as White House chief of staff.  Now Obama – and I suspect that this was driven by Daley – has made a spirited choice to head the Democratic National Committee.  From The Politico:

President Barack Obama has chosen Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the incoming chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, the party announced late Tuesday.

Wasserman Schultz, 44, was chosen for her strength as a fundraiser and as a television messenger and for her clout in the crucial swing state of Florida, the sources said.

She will succeed Tim Kaine, who announced earlier Tuesday that he will run for U.S. Senate from Virginia.

The committee announced the choice in an email to members from Vice President Joe Biden.

“In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity,” Biden wrote.

COMMENT:  By "her ability to overcome adversity," Biden was alluding to the fact that she's a breast cancer survivor.

Wasserman Schultz is a bigmouth, a transplanted New Yorker who now represents a congressional district in Florida, and an extremely effective debater and political operator.  She's photogenic and does very well on television.  Most important, she's a party sparkplug who understands that boredom doesn't win elections.  She is going to be, for our side, a very tough competitor.

I wish Republicans can learn the "spirit" lesson.  Reagan had a fighting spirit and personality that lit up the party.  There are some young, vigorous Republicans like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Eric Cantor who follow in that tradition.  But the current presidential field feels like the old presidential field, and the one before that.  I urge again that Republicans look to their new, dynamic generation for 2012.  Obama the weak president will morph into Obama the 2008 campaigner, with the press at its back.  Only a great candidate can fight back effectively.  The selection of Wasserman Schultz is a sign that the Dems are back in political style.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

HEY, WE MAY NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT PRETTY SOON – AT 8:37 A.M. ET:  From Fox:

The impasse between the White House and Congress increasingly looks like it will force the government to shut down by the weekend, with a spending summit yielding no deal on Tuesday.

President Obama said he would like to meet with congressional leaders every day until the stalemate over funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year is solved, but as of Tuesday evening no additional meetings were on the calendar.

"Myself, Joe Biden, my team -- we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to this resolved," a visibly frustrated Obama said during a surprise appearance at the White House briefing room.

The Tuesday summit with the president, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid seemed only to aggravate the two sides, and a followup meeting between the two congressional leaders didn’t seem to make any progress of funding the government through Sept. 30.

COMMENT:  Republicans were elected in November to put this nation's fiscal house in order, and that's what they're trying to do.  Paul Ryan's dramatic budget proposals, announced yesterday, are a major element in the Republican plan.

At the same time, the GOP must be superbly adept at politics while pursuing its goals.  If the government is shut down, Americans may well blame the Republicans because the White House can demagogue the issue.  ("There weren't any shutdowns when Democrats ran the House.")  In addition, the administration can make the shutdown really hurt average Americans, which will result in public fury directed at those deemed responsible.  What if Social Security checks are withheld?  Medicare payments?  Aid to education?

This weeks marks a huge test for the Republican Party – keeping its promises, yet not falling into serious political traps that can reverse the effects of the 2010 midterms.  Watch for all-night negotiations.  I think the GOP wants a deal so it can pursue its larger aims.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

OBAMA THE LEADER – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We've been following closely the effects of President Obama's lack of leadership – or confused leadership – during the Libya combat.  Europeans understand that this marks a turning point in America's role in the world.  Obama doesn't like that role, but the results of his pulling back can be catastrophic.  From Financial Times:

Transatlantic relations are being tested by the US’s refusal to lead the military mission in Libya, with figures on both sides of the ocean depicting the conflict as a wake-up call for Europe’s military and political establishments.

Britain and France are straining to fill the gap left by Washington’s decision to pull back, as Europe’s military ambitions are tested.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had flown 1,600 sorties since operations began on March 19 and would no longer be involved in air strikes against Libyan targets. It would continue support missions, such as aerial refuelling, and would remain on alert for emergency strike missions, if requested by Nato.

Defence experts maintain that the US move has a longer-term significance, since it signals that Europeans cannot rely on Washington to provide security in crises in their neighbourhood.

“What we’ve seen in Libya is hugely significant,” said Lord Hutton, a former defence secretary in the last Labour government. “The US has been saying for 10 or 15 years that it wants the Europeans to share more of the security burden and we have to heed that lesson. We should be doing much more in Europe. We cannot go on expecting the US to take the leading role.”

COMMENT:  It is correct to say that Europe has sponged off the US for too long, cutting its own defense budgets to appease the powerful European left, yet expecting us to do the heavy lifting.  In that sense, Obama's pulling back may be a good thing.

But there are right ways and wrong ways to withdraw, and Obama has decidedly chosen the wrong way.  He has pulled American forces back in the midst of a major crisis.  If any other country had done that to us, we'd call it a betrayal.  In addition, Obama has pulled forces back without a clear strategy.

Libyan rebel sources – whoever they are – are now telling news organizations that NATO is now a problem:

Libyan rebels have accused Nato of being too slow to act - and asked them to suspend operations unless they "do the job properly".

Oh great.  What a dream operation.  We've going to antagonize just about everyone, and benefit no one. 

This isn't change we can believe in.

April 6, 2011      Permalink

THE PETRAEUS FACTOR – AT 7:57 A.M. ET:  Yesterday we reported on intense speculation that General David Petraeus might be made head of the CIA in an administration musical chairs game to be played later this year.  There is also speculation that politics may be in the general's future.  Now Urgent Agenda hears from a very well-informed source, in a position to know, who has a reaction to the speculation.  Our source has these things to say about Petraeus:

1. He is exhausted because Afghanistan is an intractable mess. I spoke to two highly placed sources today who are often in Kabul. They said that despite the "surge" and much bally-hooed reorganizations, the Afghan Army remains firmly on a different script from both the US and Afghan President Karzai. Karzai is hoping against hope that reconciliation is possible. (It is not according to these two.)  

The US hopes to rapidly expand Afghan forces to achieve doctrinal counterinsurgency force ratios. Problem is the Afghans have little inclination to conduct counterinsurgency. It is very difficult and requires sophisticated NCOs, which they lack. They see their army as a buttress against Pakistan, Iran, the Stans to the north, etc.

2. I am not sure he will make a good politician. He is great in theory, but once forced to actually take positions he will inevitably lose support. And he is not that great a speaker...he does not capture a room. He has a professorial manner that may not thrill on the stump.

3. I do not believe the CIA rumors. Sounds like a White House trial balloon. They would love to keep him busy for a few years. Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, is a possibility, but may be too sideways a move for him.

COMMENT:  Interesting observations.  I heard Petraeus give a briefing in a small room last year, and must concur in the notion that he isn't a compelling speaker.  Generals often fail when they try to enter politics.  Witness Wesley Clark and William Westmoreland.  Douglas MacArthur, regarded as godlike by many Americans, broadly hinted that he was interested in the presidency, but his strident speeches turned off most Americans in the early 1950s, and he got one vote at the 1952 Republican convention.

Of course, Petraeus is being talked about constantly.  His name is always in the news.  That can't hurt should he decide to take a swing at a civilian career in government and politics. 

April 6, 2011     Permalink