TUESDAY,  APRIL 21,  2009

INTEGRITY - AT 8:51 P.M. ET:  The only pirate who survived the recent confrontation with the U.S. Navy off Somalia - his name is Muse - has been brought to New York for trial.  But there are issues about his age.  Get this, from today's dispatch from the New York Daily News:

The feds said Muse had given conflicting information about his age - telling Navy officials and an NYPD detective he was anywhere between 15 and 26.

The judge called Muse's father in Somalia and he said his son was his first-born and was born in November 1993, making him just 15.

Under questioning, though, the father said his fourth-born son was born in 1990 - and the judge ruled his testimony was not credible.

You think?

April 21, 2009   Permalink

DON'T MESS WITH CHENEY - AT 8:24 P.M. ET:  That's the advice given to President Obama by British terror expert Con Coughlin, in today's Telegraph.  Coughlin is appalled by the release of the CIA interrogation documents, and the surrounding mess:

Just as I predicted last week, President Barack Obama's misguided decision to release sensitive CIA files has opened a can of worms which now has former vice-president Dick Cheney on his case.

I never bought Mr Obama's claim that his decision to release the former Bush administration's legal opinions justifying the use of robust interrogation methods was aimed at bringing "transparency."  This was political point-scoring, pure and simple, and now his naive decision to play politics with the reputation of the CIA is causing him unnecessary grief.

And...

We know that at least two major terrorist attacks against the UK were avoided thanks to vital intelligence provided to MI6 and MI5 by the CIA. ..

...Are interrogation methods like waterboarding justified if they save lives, or should we respect the detainees' human rights, thereby enabling the terror attacks to take place and claim innocent lives? I know which option I'd go for.

And...

...Of more concern to me is the damage all this political in-fighting in Washington is doing to the morale of the CIA...

...Certainly, in this atmosphere of mutual recrimination it would be a brave intelligence officer indeed who volunteered to put his neck out in defence of his country's interests.

COMMENT:  Who'd even want the job?  The damage from the left is becoming serious, and the president must begin to realize it.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

MORE POLL SLIPPAGE FOR OBAMA - AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  We always caution that a poll is a snapshot in time, and no one poll should be seen as the final word.  However, Obama's slippage in the Rasmussen daily tracker does continue, although slowly.  His worst numbers came today.  Some 54% approve of the president's performance, whereas 45% disapprove.  Margins of error can produce variations in daily results, but the trend is downward.  On January 21st, the day after inauguration, the numbers were 65-30.  A month later they were 57-41.  On March 21st they were 55-44, a gap of eleven.  Now the gap is nine points.

Rasmussen's presidential approval index - the gap between those who strongly approve and strongly disapprove - shows a similar pattern.  Day after inauguration, 28 points; a month later, 10 points; March 21st, four points; today, two points.

There were intermediate polls between those dates that showed normal variations.  And we should point out that polls by other organizations show a higher approval for Mr. Obama.  But Rasmussen has a solid record, and polls daily.  If Mr. Obama is indeed at 54%, there should be some concern in the White House.  An international defeat, or more devastation in the economy, could push the president closer to that 50% mark, with its psychological and political implications.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

DISGRACEFUL - AT 6:32 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday left open the door to creating a bipartisan commission that would investigate the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, and he did not rule out taking action against the lawyers who fashioned the legal guidelines for the interrogations.

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

COMMENT:  One of the key things we worry about with Obama is weakness, and he certainly showed it today.  All he's doing is buckling under to the hard left of his party.  The damage this "commission" could do to a country at war is overwhelming.  During World War II we put off a public congressional inquiry into Pearl Harbor because it would damage morale and the war effort.  Apparently, Mr. Obama isn't aware of the precedent.  Someone please send a note.

How do we "take action" against lawyers who gave honest advice?  Do we say, "You gave advice the current administration doesn't agree with, therefore we prosecute you"?  What an incentive to recruit the best people for government service!

Buck up, Mr. President - both domestically and in foreign policy!  We try to be fair here, but there are limits to our indulgence.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

U.S. CITIZEN TO APPEAL IRAN VERDICT - AT 9:07 A.M. ET:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Jailed Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi has appealed against her eight-year sentence for spying against Iran, the official IRNA news agency said on Tuesday.

Saberi, 31, was sentenced on Saturday on charges of spying for the United States, in a verdict that could complicate Washington's efforts toward reconciliation with the Islamic Republic after three decades of mutual mistrust.

"Saberi has appealed and I hope that the appeal court will change the verdict," IRNA quoted judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi as saying.

COMMENT:  Looks like a stunt.  My hunch is that she was arrested so she can be released later in a grand gesture of "good will."  Don't buy it.

Oh, by the way, I want to refer readers to a great source of information about Iran, Iran Press News. Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, who has given us many great tips about events in Iran, is now providing skilled translations for that service, and it's well worth visiting.  It's here.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

IS OBAMA VULNERABLE IN FOREIGN POLICY? - AT 8:38 A.M. ET:  From The Politico: 

Republicans are hoping they have finally found the secret to taking on President Barack Obama — by portraying him as overly apologetic about U.S. misdeeds and naive about engaging unfriendly regimes abroad.

But tagging Obama as a “Jimmy Carter Democrat” on foreign affairs and national security may prove a difficult critique to make stick - at least for the moment.

That is because Obama and his aides have sought to inoculate themselves against the charge with a simple defense: This is what the public voted for in November.

The White House says Obama made clear that his foreign policy approach called for engagement and admitting mistakes where warranted and that voters embraced that sharp break with eight years of the Bush administration.

COMMENT:  As the story points out, there are risks for both sides.  On the one hand, it's clearly too early for Republicans to claim that Obama's foreign policy is a flop, because there haven't been enough results.  The early signs - the North Korean missile test, Iran's back of the hand, European fecklessness over Afghanistan, the Latin American "blame everything on the Yankee" summit - are not encouraging, and we have slammed the president here for the endless grovel gambit.  But we need clearer results for there to be real political effect.  Sadly, I think we'll have them, and sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, the Obamans play a dangerous game when they assert that Americans "voted" for this approach in November.  They voted primarily to throw the rascals out, and their votes were heavily affected by the financial crisis.  I doubt if a majority of Americans voted for policies that often seem weak and aimless.  And 46% voted for the very tough John McCain.

That said, I think, and I've said this here before, that it's simplistic to label Obama another Carter, although there are some similarities in the way in which both men engage the world.  But I think Obama is sharper, is a better and more astute politician, and is, frankly, considerably less obnoxious than Carter.  If Obama's foreign policy begins to fail, I think he may have the ability to see the facts and make changes.  Carter lacked that ability, and still does.

Look, we can hope.  We want the president, any president, to conduct a foreign policy that protects the nation.

April 21, 2009   Permalink   

GOVERNMENT GAINS, BUSINESS SLIPS, IN LATEST GALLUP POLL - AT 7:51 A.M. ET:  A newly released poll shows Americans fear big government more than big business, but that the gap is narrowing.  From the Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp":

Fifty-five percent view big government as the biggest threat, 32 percent big business -- but that's down from 61 percent vis a vis gov't and up from 25 percent vis a vis business when Gallup asked the same questions in December of 2006.

And guess what: The party breakdowns are dramatic: 80 percent of Republicans view big government as the biggest threat to the country, up from 68 percent in December 2006. Just 55 percent of Democrats said big government posed the greater threat in that 2006 survey, while 32 percent say so in the latest poll.

COMMENT:  The results aren't surprising.  Obama's election has made government, at least temporarily, somewhat more popular.  By contrast, business wears a big black eye, some of it deserved, over its stewardship in recent years. 

The threat here is that government can grab power and not give it back.  Corruptionists in big business can be handled in a number of ways.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

SHOCKING THAT THEY SHOULD DO THIS - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  One again the so-called "progressives" in Congress are looking for ways to arrange American military defeats.  There is nothing even vaguely "progressive" about these people at all.  They're reactionary leftists, and allies of dictators.  Congressional Quarterly reports:

The Out of Iraq Caucus, which formed nearly four years ago, has yet to achieve its main objective of a full U.S. troop withdrawal from that Middle Eastern nation, but it is beginning to turn its sights to another war zone: Afghanistan.

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, says he and other Out of Iraq Caucus members are thinking about putting a greater emphasis on Afghanistan.
In fact, he said, the name of the Out of Iraq Caucus could change to reflect the rising concerns of many liberal Democrats about the growing military commitment in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been searching for al Qaeda leaders and fighting a Taliban insurgency since October 2001.

"I think we see that we have the same problems in Afghanistan that we once had in Iraq: no end, no exit strategy, no clear end product of our presence there," Grijalva said.

COMMENT:  Ho hum, ho hum.  You can almost predict everything this crowd says and does.  The fact is, we've had some members of Congress like this since the 1920s.  There's always a small group ready to write poetry to Fidel, recall Ho Chi Minh with warmth, and claim that Hugo is misunderstood.  Pass 'em by.

April 21, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE OTHER SIDE - AT 7:27 A.M. ET:  From the Washington Post:

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

COMMENT:  The column is by Marc A. Thiessen, who served in the Pentagon and was President Bush's chief speechwriter.  One does not have to believe in, or accept, the interrogation techniques used by the CIA to demand that the full story be told - including the results of the interrogations. 

Former Vice President Cheney is demanding that the administration release additional CIA memos that report the value of enhanced interrogation techniques in saving American lives.  I doubt if that will happen.

The controversy reminds me of the "no WMD found in Iraq" issue.  The fact that stockpiles weren't found in Iraq has been the single most effective club used by the "Bush lied, thousands died" faction.  However, what was found in Iraq, after major combat ended, were WMD programs that were set to be restarted once the UN lifted its sanctions on Iraq, probably in late 2003.  That part of the truth is played down or even ignored by the media, as it does not fit the approved narrative. 

Thiessen argues that the release, last week, of internal memos detailing enhanced interrogation techniques provides our enemies with details with which to train their people to resist American interrogations.  Thiessen concludes:

President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

Anyone in the media care?

April 21, 2009   Permalink 

MONDAY,  APRIL 20,  2009

OH PLEASE - AT 4:47 P.M. ET:  The political campaign continues.  Will these guys please realize that they've got the job.  From The Washington Times:

Top White House adviser David Axelrod on Monday said that President Obama's trips to Europe, Turkey and Latin America in the last three weeks have made anti-American sentiment uncool and "created a new receptivity" to U.S. interests.

"What's happened is anti-Americanism isn't cool anymore," Mr. Axelrod said, speaking to an audience of a few hundred at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

"This president has not only engaged the leaders of the world, he's engaged the people of the world," Mr. Axelrod said, arguing that Mr. Obama's approach to foreign policy has restored "a sense of humility" that "was missing" in the past.

COMMENT:  I just wish they'd get off that tack.  It sounds so amateurish.  "The people of the world" have no power in many countries; it's the governments we have to worry about.  Hold the bragging until we see some concrete results that advance the American interest.  It may be "uncool" to be anti-American in some circles now, but that message clearly hasn't resonated with governments from North Korea, through Iran, and on to Venezuela.

April 20, 2009   Permalink

IS THIS SERIOUS? - AT 4:33 P.M. ET:  From The Politico:

With the newspaper industry flailing, Congressional leaders have talked recently about ways to address the financial problems plaguing the press.

Now, Sen. John Kerry -- whose local paper remains on shaky ground -- plans on holding hearings about the state of the industry, beginning next week.

"America's newspapers are struggling to survive and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount," Kerry wrote in a letter sent to union leaders Friday. The union released the letter yesterday.

In his letter, addressed to "the Boston Globe family," Kerry voiced his commitment to the industry and to ensuring that the "vital public service newspapers provide does not disappear."

COMMENT:  Should we be concerned about disappearing newspapers?  Sure.  We had that same concern in the early sixties when the same trend appeared, but the country survived.

Historically, the government has given certain breaks to publications, primarily lower postal rates.  But I'm uncomfortable about a member of Congress intervening on behalf of news organizations, especially those, like the Boston Globe, that politically support that member. 

It's our view here that the reasons for the decline in newspapers are not fully acknowledged within the industry.  Many in journalism just can't accept that the quality and editorial fairness of the product come heavily into play.  A better product might well save a newspaper company, although there are no guarantees.

April 20, 2009   Permalink

DOW CLOSE - AT 4:02 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed down 281 points, to 7850, before final adjustments. 

DOW DIVES - AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  The Dow took an early dive this morning, and is down 186 points, to 7946.

April 20, 2009

POLL STUNNER - AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  This morning's daily Rasmussen tracker has some sobering news for the White House.  The gap between those who approve of Mr. Obama's performance and those who disapprove is at its narrowest point since inauguration.

Those who approve - 55%.  Disapprove - 45%.  That gap, ten points, was 35 points on January 21st.

Rasmussen's other measure, his presidential approval index, measures the gap between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove.  It's now at three points.  On January 21st it was 28 points.

A word of caution:  Presidential approval is normally very high for a new president right after inauguration.  It's the honeymoon.  Approval tends to diminish over time.  The key question is how far down it goes.  This president has pulled out all stops to run a perpetual campaign, but it clearly hasn't stopped the erosion.

April 20, 2009   Permalink

AND ANOTHER REMINDER OF REALITY - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  Al Qaeda clearly isn't buying the Obama doctrine.  Business as usual among the cave set:

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command told Muslims not to be fooled by U.S. President Barack Obama's policies which, he said on an Islamist website on Monday, are no different to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"America came to us with a new face, with which it is trying to fool us. He is calling for change, but (he aims) to change us so that we abandon our religion and rights," Ayman al-Zawahri said in an audio recording on the website.

Zawahri said Obama's election was an acknowledgement that Bush's policy had failed.

"Obama did not change the image of America among Muslims...America is still killing Muslims," said the Egyptian militant leader.

COMMENT:  It may finally dawn on some of the newcomers in Washington that Al Qaeda isn't interested in the cosmetics of American policy.  It's interested in an American surrender.  Linked to the two stories we've posted below, a picture emerges of an international security situation much like the one President Bush had to deal with. 

But as we get further away from 9-11, Americans are forgetting.  Al Qaeda, like any enemy, depends on that.  Sadly, there are plenty of people on the left fringe, and in the press, who would like to help us forget. 

April 20, 2009   Permalink

PAKISTAN SINKING - AT 7:45 A.M. ET:  This could turn out to be one of the major stories of our time.  Sadly, it has not yet resonated with the American public.  What happens in Pakistan often seems so vague and distant.  Not really.  From the Washington Post:

SLAMABAD, Pakistan, April 19 -- A potentially troubling era dawned Sunday in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where a top Islamist militant leader, emboldened by a peace agreement with the federal government, laid out an ambitious plan to bring a "complete Islamic system" to the surrounding northwest region and the entire country.

Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.

"The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin," Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan's modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all "un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished," and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas.

COMMENT:  They key point is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.  Should they fall into the hands of an Islamist regime, dedicated to destroying "the infidel," we're in trouble.  Remember, we're the infidel, the Great Satan.

Watch this carefully.

April 20, 2009    Permalink

OBAMA THE POLITICIAN, AND NATIONAL SECURITY - AT 7:40 A.M. ET:  Terrorism expert Con Coughlin, writing in Britain's Telegraph, warns against President Obama politicizing, and weakening, national security:

All it is going to take is a massive terror attack to teach President Obama that there is a world of difference between the politics of the campaign trail and those of high office.

Right now, Coughlin says, the techniques of the campaign trail are infecting national policy:

Whether it is his appeal to Iran's fundamentalist mullahs to unclench their fists, his reluctance to confront North Korea's nuclear activities or his "new beginning" with Cuba, the President wants to be everybody's friend, as he was on last year's campaign trail.

But a change of leadership at the White House does not mean the world has suddenly become a safer place. Al-Qaeda is still devising plots, the Taliban continues to murder coalition forces and rogue states such as North Korea, Syria and Iran persist with efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction while supporting Islamist terror groups.

Ah, reality.  Why won't it go away?

Coughlin is critical of the Bush administration, but decries the release of memos justifying enhanced interrogation techniques to be used on terror suspects:

...there is little new in the revelations that the CIA had used White House-sanctioned methods of torture – such as water-boarding, in which a detainee suffers simulated drowning...

...So why did Mr Obama reopen old wounds by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions? The answer lies more with the President's desire to heap humiliation on his predecessor than his stated aim of transparency on this dark episode. Playing party politics with sensitive security issues might work well on the campaign trail, where candidates can do so without consequences. But in office it is another matter, and runs the risk of compromising the effectiveness of intelligence and security agencies.

That is exactly what former CIA chief Michael Hayden said over the weekend.

Jimmy Carter's drive to cleanse the CIA after the scandals of the Nixon years left the organisation neutered to the extent that the White House found itself unsighted on two of the most cataclysmic events of the late 1970s – the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Mr Obama runs a similar risk if he continues to undermine the morale of America's lead intelligence-gathering agency.

Ah, the comparisons with Jimmah Carter.  Sadly, some in the Obama administration would be proud of those comparisons.

Say what you like about the Bush administration, the former president left office proud in the knowledge that he had achieved his most important goal in the aftermath of September 11 – to prevent America from suffering a repeat attack. If Mr Obama wants to emulate that success, he must provide effective leadership to the legions of dedicated professionals in whose hands the defence of America and its allies rests.

COMMENT:  Well stated.  Obviously, we cannot be blind to improper activity in an intelligence agency, as in any other department of the government.  But undermining the effectiveness of that agency is another matter altogether.  Coughlin correctly notes the virtual destruction of the CIA in the 1970s.  Some would dearly love to do it again, and they might just try.  Some of them are the very same people who were active in the seventies.  Now they have greater seniority.

April 20, 2009   Permalink