MONDAY,  AUGUST 3,  2009

BUBBA ON THE WAY - AT 11:08 P.M. ET:  There are reports all over that former President Bill Clinton is on his way to North Korea to handle the release of those American journalists seized by the North Koreans some months ago, tried, and convicted as spies.  Apparently, a deal has been worked out.

Look, we want our people back.  But what are the details here?  What kind of "deal" are we talking about?  What did we give up to get back what shouldn't have been taken in the first place? 

The greatest danger is that Clinton will return with the two young women and announce that he'd detected a "new atmosphere" or "new flexibility" or "more cooperative tone" (take your pick) in North Korea. 

We've been down this road with the North Koreans many times.  They do something outrageous, then make a glorious concession for "humanitarian" reasons, and we fall all over ourselves hailing a new day that hasn't arrived, and never will.  You see, you belligerent Yankees, engagement works.  The One says so.

The Iranians are watching.  They're now holding three Americans who apparently strayed across their border from Iraq.  They're studying how the North Koreans milk the situation.  Then maybe they'll do the same. 

How to manipulate the United States.  Textbook cases.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

OBSCENITY IN PAKISTAN - AT 8:19 P.M. ET:  The New York Times, not always our favorite here, should be commended for running this story on anti-Christian persecution in Pakistan.  This kind of persecution goes on in many parts of the Muslim world, but goes largely ignored by our aloof-to-religion press:

GOJRA, Pakistan — The blistered black walls of the Hameed family’s bedroom tell of an unspeakable crime. Seven family members died here on Saturday, six of them burned to death by a mob that had broken into their house and shot the grandfather dead, just because they were Christian.

Attacks began in Gojra over a claim that a Koran had been defiled.
The family had huddled in the bedroom, talking in whispers with their backs pressed against the door, as the mob taunted them.

“They said, ‘If you come out, we’ll kill you,’ ” said Ikhlaq Hameed, 22, who escaped. Among the dead were two children, Musa, 6, and Umaya, 13.

The attack in this shabby town in central Pakistan — the culmination of several days of rioting over a claim that a Koran had been defiled — shows how precarious life is for the tiny Christian minority in Pakistan.

And...

“We were afraid because the clerics had been railing against us in the mosques,” said Riaz Masih, a Christian and retired math teacher whose house was gutted. “They said, ‘Let’s teach them a lesson.’ ”

COMMENT:  Questions:  Where is the U.S. Government, which is quick to condemn any slight against Muslims?  Where are the "human rights" groups?  Where is the U.N.?  And where, of course, are the "multiculturalists" in our colleges and universities, who would be at the barricades if one of the left's favorite groups was offended? 

I think we all know where.  Hear the silence.

August 3, 2009  Permalink

READ THE FINE PRINT - AT 6:17 P.M. ET:  Most economic predictions are worth ignoring.  One economist who always gets attention, though, is Nouriel Roubini of NYU, who predicted the global financial crisis.  Now he is predicting the easing of the recession by year's end...but you have to read the fine print:

Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics and a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, predicted on July 23 that the global economy will begin recovering near the end of 2009 before possibly dropping back into a recession by late 2010 or 2011 because of rising government debt, higher oil prices and a lack of job growth.

Ah, there's the fine print.  We can get out of this...temporarily.  But we may slip right back into recession after a brief period during which CNN pays homage to Obama and space is cleared on Mount Rushmore.

We have deep economic problems, and they won't be solved by a cash for clunkers program or a stock market rally.  People forget that there was a sustained rally between 1933 and 1937, in the heart of the great Depression, followed by another dive and continued unemployment.  It wasn't until World War II that we recovered economically.

August 3, 2009   Permalink 

WASHINGTON ECONOMICS - AT 5:32 P.M. ET:  We're getting propagandized about the "end" of the recession and the dawning of the age of Obamius.  The figures tell a different story:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation's plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession's impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.

COMMENT:  Two major presidential advisers suggested over the weekend that new taxes, including taxes on the middle class, will be considered.  (See story just below.)  Today, presidential news secretary Robert Gibbs played down their remarks, reiterating Obama's "commitment" not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year. 

Now wait.  If that commitment still stands, how do we account for the advisers' comments?  Don't they know the policy?  Have they met the president?  Chatted with him?  It's inconceivable that advisers on the level of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers would make the comments they made unless they were on firm ground.  They're bright guys.  They know the impact of the word "taxes."

So, we're spending like crazy, taking in very little, and may need new taxes, except the White House says we won't.  This is the economic policy of the new administration.  Yes they can.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

NOW THEY TELL US - AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  It's the tax thing.  It's with us again.  Someone figured out that the government doesn't have enough money to write all those checks that are being written.  Cash for clunkers may run out of cash.  Cash for medical care will certainly run out of cash.  And Band-Aids.  Here is the latest on the tax question:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.

As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is "pretty sure we've already seen the bottom" of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.

And...

During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.

COMMENT:  A British commentary today notes that Obama needed the Reagan Democrats to win the election.  If he raises taxes, though, in defiance of his pledge, he will almost certainly lose them, fracturing the already strained Democratic coalition. 

The tax issue is going to erupt.  Not only would the president be breaking a pledge if he attempts to raise taxes on the middle class, he'll be raising taxes in a weak economy, a prescription for disaster. 

When numbers don't add up, something is wrong.  And the numbers aren't adding up.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

A POLITICAL WARNING - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Republicans are becoming more optimistic that they can put a stop to the Obama steamroller, and they appear to have about half the American people with them.

But a warning:  The name of the game in politics is "win."  We don't give out prizes for second place.  Having a good argument isn't enough.  Strategies must be well executed, with the right candidate, and even experienced candidates can falter.

Consider what's happening to the very popular and supremely experienced Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who will resign from the Senate soon to run for governor, a post that could be a steppingstone to the presidency.  Apparently, as they say, mistakes have been made:

AUSTIN — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison began this year as “Kay the Invincible.” But as she prepares to officially launch her bid for governor later this month, that aura is gone.

Hutchison entered the year with the ability to make other politicians quake. She had two re-election victories under her belt with more than 60 percent of the vote in each. Her popularity ratings in polls put her at the top among Texas politicians. And public polls showed her leading Gov. Rick Perry by anywhere from 6 to 27 percentage points.

Then Hutchison went silent — leaving the field of Texas politics to Perry for more than four months.

The senator “squandered her opportunity,” Republican political consultant Mark Sanders said. “She ceded the Republican base to Governor Perry.”

Perry focused a message on conservative Republican primary voters. He railed against the federal government, against stimulus funding, against federal health care plans and for states' rights. Hutchison's advantage in the polls was eliminated, and Perry took a lead of more than 10 percentage points in three separate polls in June.

COMMENT:  Douglas MacArthur once warned that all defeats begin with two words:  Too late.  Rudy Giuliani squandered his chance at the presidency by waiting too long to get into the race.  Mario Cuomo squandered his chance by waiting, then not getting in at all.

Hutchison may recover.  But she forgot that the right to remain silent is reserved for accused criminals.  If you're not going to be in the fight, the other guy wins.  And this is a lesson for Republicans, who have a tendency to be very casual about getting into the fight and winning.

Proof?  Remember President Dewey?  He thought he had it in the bag also.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

THIS IS NUTS - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  As an example of some of the worst journalism I've read recently, I proudly give you this column by Juan Cole, leftist Mideast observer and professional Bush hater, here writing outside his field, not that it matters:

Aug. 3, 2009 | Is Sarah Palin America's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The two differ in many key respects, of course, but it is remarkable how similar they are. There are uncanny parallels in their biographies, their domestic politics and the way they present themselves -- even in their rocky relationships with party elders.

Both are former governors of a northwest frontier state with great natural beauty (in Ahmadinejad's case, Ardabil). Both are known for saying things that produce a classic Scooby-Doo double take in their audiences. Both appeal to a sort of wounded nationalism, speaking of the sacrifice of dedicated troops for an often feckless public, and identifying themselves with the common soldier. They are vigilant against foreign designs on their countries and insist on energy and other independence.

COMMENT:  This is what happens when commentators realize they have nothing to write about, and start to panic.  I wasn't aware that Sarah had organized goon squads to shoot demonstrators, nor has she rigged any elections recently.  Last time I looked, she's not a Holocaust denier, nor has she threatened to wipe another country off the face of the Earth. 

Sometimes, it's best to call in sick and walk away from the word processor.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

IRANIAN POLITICAL BLESSING - AT 7:13 A.M. ET:  Big week for Iranian politics, with the Ahmadinejad scheduled to take the presidential oath on Wednesday:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader formally endorsed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term as president Monday in a ceremony that sought to portray unity among the country's leadership but was snubbed by prominent critics of the disputed election.

After Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave his official seal of approval, he received an awkward kiss on the shoulder from Ahmadinejad. It cleared the way for Ahmadinejad to take the oath of office Wednesday in parliament, where many pro-reform lawmakers have echoed the claims of fraud in the June 12 election.

COMMENT:  Wouldn't you love to be at that inaugural ball Wednesday night - all guys, all kissing each other, then blowing each other up?  It'll be a blast.

But just remember - this dysfunctional family is within reach of nuclear weapons.

August 3, 2009   Permalink

SUNDAY,  AUGUST 2,  2009

IRAN AND THE BOMB, NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD - AT 8:50 P.M. ET:  From The Times of London:

Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.

The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader.

That year, 2003, stuck in my mind.  Here's why:

A US National Intelligence Estimate two years ago concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear arms research programme in 2003 because of the threat from the American invasion of Iraq. But intelligence sources have told The Times that Tehran had halted the research because it had achieved its aim — to find a way of detonating a warhead that could be launched on its long-range Shehab-3 missiles.

That would seem logical, if chilling.  There should be a complete Congressional investigation of how our NIE was written...because no one else agrees with it, and it didn't seem to be based on much.  Maybe wishful thinking.

If Iran’s leader does decide to build a bomb, he will have two choices, intelligence sources said. One would be to take the high-risk approach of kicking out the international inspectors and making a sprint to complete Iran’s first bomb, as the country weathered international sanctions or possible air strikes in the ensuing crisis. The other would be to covertly develop the materials needed for an arsenal in secret desert facilities.

Secret facilities?  They wouldn't do that, would they?  Especially after The One's outreach to Muslim countries?  We must think better of our culturally different neighbors.

COMMENT:  It's impossible for me to evaluate this story, but it does seem very solidly reported.  It's clear there were a variety of sources.  The story notes:

British intelligence services are familiar with the secret information about Iran’s experiments, sources at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said. Although British agencies did not have their own “independent evidence” that Iran had successfully tested the explosive component of a nuclear warhead, they said there was no reason to doubt the assessment.

And that's the point.  There's no reason to doubt it.  And wise defense planners plan for the bad news, not a rosy view of the world.  Crunch time is coming for President Obama.  Within the next five months, Iran policy will either move toward success or catastrophic failure.  We hope someone in the White House understands the consequences of failure.

August 2, 2009   Permalink

CASH FOR CLUNKERS? - AT 8:03 P.M. ET:  Well, looks like the Obamans have a program that works.  You bring your clunker into a dealer, they give you a huge discount courtesy of other taxpayers, you drive off in a new car, and they destroy your clunker.  Absolutely destroy it.

Sounds good, ay?  Well, you don't have to look at the fine print to realize what a fraud this is.  Just look at the facts:

1.  The government is paying people to buy cars, many of which are produced by companies the government, in effect, already owns.  As for other companies, they'll report big sales and it will look super.  One dealer reported on TV that he's selling twice the number of cars he would ordinarily.  Well, of course!  Give people free money to buy cars and they'll buy them.  But what happens when there isn't any more government money?  Does the term "next recession" mean anything?

2.  No one is looking to see whether the companies are jacking up prices, and then applying the government discount - sort of the way colleges have a way of raising tuition as soon as kids get scholarships and loans.

3.  Many of the clunkers aren't.  This is where the real obscenity comes in.  I looked at photos of some of those cars on TV.  They looked like perfectly fine, driveable vehicles.  Yet, under the guidance of the enviro-fanatics who dreamed up this joke, they must be destroyed.  They don't meet the standards of the fly-into-Aspen-for-a-conference crowd.  These vehicles can go to charities, they can go to caregivers, they can go to schools, they can go to activity groups for the elderly, they can go to poorer countries where people would love to have even low-mileage cars.  To destroy them is an act of arrogance, conceit and self-regard.  They are being "traded" simply because someone wants a new set of wheels and is getting a government subsidy. 

There's something immoral about this whole thing - using tax money so some folks can have new cars, and depriving the needy of those old cars.  Next, someone will come up with the idea of depriving some people of their lives under Obamacare if those lives don't meet environmental standards.  Better get a sticker with acceptable numbers to slap on your chest.  Or be labeled a clunker.

August 2, 2009   Permalink

SOBERING FACTS - AT 11:22 A.M. ET:  Reader John F. Dowd reports the following:

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US , than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington.

COMMENT:  One (other) thing I find outrageous about the Obama White House is its silence on the horrible murder rate in America's cities, especially the president's home city of Chicago.  There are weekends when parts of Chicago become a shooting gallery.  And yet, the president became obsessed by an apparently appropriate arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Mr. Obama is out of touch, in many ways.

August 2, 2009  Permalink  

OBAMA UP IN RASMUSSEN POLL - AT 10:25 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has been reporting a slight improvement in Obama's poll numbers for the last two days.  He notes that presidents usually get a positive bounce after news conferences, but that the bounce soon disappears.  President Obama received a negative dip after his recent the-Cambridge-cops-acted-stupidly press conference, but that dip may be easing.  It will take further polling to find out if this is a trend.

Today's Rasmussen report has the president at 50% approving and 49% disapproving, his best showing since July 22nd.  Some 37% strongly disapprove, and 31% strongly approve, a minus six, the best number since July 21st.

August 2, 2009   Permalink

REMARKABLE STATEMENT - AT 10:02 A.M. ET:  Sally Quinn, of the Washington Post, is not known for bucking the trendy trends of Washington salons.  But in a column she writes today, she breathes some fresh air into the Gates arrest story with a remarkably candid view of Professor Gates, one we've not seen expressed elsewhere:

Now, here's my own disclaimer about not having all the facts: I don't know anything about Crowley, except that his colleagues seem to support him and that he once taught a class for fellow police officers on racial profiling. But I do know about Skip Gates. What nobody will say publicly, for fear of being called a racist, is that he is notorious, especially among many of his colleagues (black and white) at Harvard, for being short-tempered and arrogant. I have had personal dealings with him in which his behavior was not honorable.

Saying that may get me in trouble. Gates is the moderator of The Root, a website owned by the Washington Post Company. I suspect that Don Graham, my boss and the company's owner, will now be forced to have us over to his home to reconcile over a cold one.

COMMENT:  Okay, I'm glad someone said it.  I'm not glad that Gates's reputation for arrogance has been suppressed in every other news story.  Clearly, the press censored itself for politically correct reasons.  Please note that Sgt. Crowley's background, reputation, and image among others was investigated in detail, and reported.

Oh, by the way, it is also correct to point out that Gates has done some very fine work.  No problem noting that.

This reminds me of another hypocritical practice in journalism - the refusal to report honestly and completely about the backgrounds and beliefs of militant leftists.  If someone is on the far right, you can be sure that his record will be given severe scrutiny.  On the left, we often get some euphemism like "anti-war activist," or "peace crusader."  Go further and you'll be called a McCarthyite.  When is the last time you saw a detailed story about the political views and backgrounds of the Code Pink crowd?  There was no last time. 

August 2, 2009   Permalink

FINALLY, RESOLUTION - AT 9:45 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Navy officials announced early Sunday that Marines in western Anbar Province, Iraq, had found remains that have been positively identified as those of an American fighter pilot shot down in the opening hours of the first Gulf War in 1991.

The Navy pilot, Michael Scott Speicher, was the only American missing in action from that war. Efforts to determine what happened to him after his F/A-18 Hornet was lost to ground fire on Jan. 17, 1991, had continued despite false rumors and scant information.

COMMENT:  This is important because it provides closure to the family, and demonstrates that we never stop looking for a missing member of our armed services.  It also puts to rest rumors that Capt. Speicher was still being held in Iraq.

The appropriate thing now, of course, would be a reburial at Arlington, or a cemetery chosen by the family.  The president should attend, or at least send a high-ranking representative, to show respect.

August 2, 2009   Permalink