For those interested, I have a new piece up at Hudson New York this morning, called "Progressives."  It's here.

TUESDAY,  MAY 19,  2009

EXPLANATION - AT 11:58 P.M. ET:  You may have noticed that we were not posting for some of the afternoon and most of the evening.  We were at West Point tonight for the annual graduation concert of the glee club.   We go every year.

What a terrific bunch of young men and women.  If you have a chance to visit the United States Military Academy at West Point, you should.  If you get a chance to hear the glee club live, you must.  There are fine young people in America, and those at the service academies are among the best. 

Graduation is in a few days.  Then these new second lieutenants will be off to active service.  The concert tonight was dedicated to a member of the class of 2007 who lost his life in combat.  That is the reality.

May 19, 2009   Permalink

WHOOPS, AND WHOOPS AGAIN - AT 11:49 P.M. ET:  It is time for the Democratic leaders in Congress to take a refresher course in mouth shutting, a fine art occasionally practiced in Washington.  The Associated Press, not known as conservative-friendly, is to be commended for a very straightforward report on the latest tripping and stalling:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid became the latest Democrat to stray into rhetorical trouble Tuesday, botching statements on three subjects in one news conference -- including the fragile health of the chamber's most senior members.

The Nevada Democrat reported that one of them, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was absent because he was receiving a new round of treatment for his brain cancer. Asked if the cancer was in remission, Reid replied, ''As far as I know, it is, yes.''

Kennedy's office refused to confirm Reid's comments or make any statement in response, the public silence a classic Washington disavowal.

COMMENT:  The rest of the story is a gem.  Mistake after mistake.  Reid is in trouble politically in his home state of Nevada, and maybe for good reason.  I wouldn't want this man tutoring any kids for their College Boards.

May 19, 2009   Permalink

SUICIDAL - AT 3:58 P.M. ET:  There is a particular, if subdued, pleasure in watching the political left engage in repeated attempts at suicide, generally unsuccessful because of incompetence alone.  Now they seem more serious about it.  Not content with taking on the CIA and seeing the negative public reaction, they want to escalate:

House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the accuracy of CIA records showing who was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, with Rep. David R. Obey, House Appropriations Committee chairman, saying they have discovered an inaccuracy in the records.

The dispute over the accuracy of the records sparked fierce partisan bickering after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said last week the CIA lied when it said its records showed she was briefed personally on harsh interrogation tactics as far back as 2002.

In a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta, Mr. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, said that in light of the controversy, he wants the record corrected on the 2006 briefing.

COMMENT:  We have tracked David Obey here before.  He entered Congress in 1969, 40 years ago.  His first actions in Congress were attempts to destroy the American action in Vietnam.  Just last week he boasted that he now wants to do to Iraq and Afghanistan what he did to Vietnam.

And he's the point man for the Dems on this CIA matter.  Trust him?

Having David Obey as a committee chairman today is somewhat akin to having those old segregationists as committee chairmen during the civil rights era. 

And people criticize the Republicans for being extreme.  Unbelievable.

May 19, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA RATINGS UP - AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen has recently been reporting improved approval ratings for President Obama.  It varies from day to day, of course, and all polls have a margin of error, but the trend - and that's what we look for - has definitely been upward.  For example, Ras's poll out this morning shows 58% approving of the president's performance, with 41% disapproving, a margin of 17%.  It was down to 9% as recently as May 2nd.

What could be causing this?  It's too early to tell, and of course the trend can reverse.  But, as we discussed in our 7:12 a.m. post today, there's a lot of buzz as to whether Obama is moving to the center, and certainly some of the national-security decisions he's made recently hint at that.  Is it possible that he's strengthening his support in the middle of the political spectrum?  We'll watch the trend.

May 19, 2009   Permalink

THE BRITS' PELOSI IN HOT WATER - AT 7:26 A.M. ET:  I like the way the British handle a political scandal - much more direct and blunt than our own ways.  And it happens that there's a whopper under way in the mother country.  It deals with reimbursement for politicians' expenses.  It seems some of the honorable ladies and gentlemen were putting in for some mighty amounts.  And among those swept up is the British Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Commons.  Now, this is the way you handle a scandal, from The Times of London:

Michael Martin is to resign today as Speaker of the House of Commons as the controversy over MPs' expenses claims its biggest scalp.

Westminster sources said this morning that the veteran Labour MP for Glasgow North East had decided he should go in the face of yesterday's unprecedented attacks on his authority on the floor of the House and after losing the trust of the Prime Minister.

One Labour MP who directly called on him to go during in the Commons yesterday – David Winnick – welcomed the move. "That is the right and honourable course to take," he said. "His resignation will be the first step in the House recovering its reputation."

Mr Martin is to inform MPs of his decision at the start of Commons business at 2.30pm. He is expected to leave before the summer recess, rather than trying to stay on in the post until the next election.

COMMENT:  Ah, Nancy, you have a role model.  Now our own sweet speaker has made grave charges against our intelligence services, refuses to back them up, tells a variety of versions of the same fibs...and still has her job.  She should look to the Crown for guidance.  Even the Republican attacks on her have been mild, with the exception of the assaults launched by Newt.

Madam Speaker, if you cannot straighten out your stories, and prove your case, then you should join your honorable British equivalent in the wilderness.

May 19, 2009   Permalink   

OBAMA, CENTRIST? - AT 7:12 A.M. ET:  The Associated Press, in a fair analysis, asks the question being asked more and more in Washington:  Is President Obama moving toward the center, even at the risk of infuriating his vocal leftist supporters?  We're cautious on this.  We haven't seen enough proof.  But the question is intriguing, with vast implications for next year's congressional elections:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- On both economic and national-security fronts, President Barack Obama is giving ground and crossing swords with political allies.

Caught in the worst economic downturn in generations, Obama has had to temper his stance on trade and lower his expectations for trimming charitable tax breaks for the wealthy and for taxing greenhouse-gas polluters.

He's not the first president to be pulled toward the political center after being elected. But the recession and two wars abroad put him in a particularly tough spot -- with smaller margins for error.

With the deficit mushrooming, lawmakers in both parties are worrying more and more about rivers of government red ink. Yet, Obama's efforts to try to modestly pare back funds for some pet Democratic projects in the name of fiscal discipline have drawn sharp criticism from some of his otherwise staunch liberal allies.

COMMENT:  This may well turn out to be the political story of the year.  Who really is Barack Obama?  Are these "centrist" moves a change of thinking, or cynical political maneuvers reflecting public rejection of Obama's policies? 

But before we scream "centrist" too loudly, recall that this is the man who's expanding the government at the greatest rate in recent memory, and who began his foreign policy by insulting the prime minister of our closest ally, Great Britain.

In early June the president will speak to the Muslim world from Egypt.  I prefer to wait for that speech to see if he departs from his early groveling and apologizing, and speaks strongly and forthrightly as an American president.  If he does, we might begin to think that there's some hope.  No earlier.

May 19, 2009   Permalink

MORE CIA WORRIES - AT 7:09 A.M. ET:  Related to the story just below is the fear of many in the CIA that their work will be compromised by restrictions and public scrutiny.  No doubt they recall that, in the 1970s, liberals in Congress went off on one of their morality campaigns and decimated the CIA, leaving it unprepared to deal with the problems of the next three decades.  From
The Washington Post:

Battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration, the CIA is girding itself for more public scrutiny and is questioning whether agency personnel can conduct interrogations effectively under rules set out for the U.S. military, according to senior intelligence officials.

Harsh interrogations were only one part of its clandestine activities against al-Qaeda and other enemies, and agency members are worried that other operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan will come under review, the officials said.

And...

The agency's defensiveness in part reflects a conviction that it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor. Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview that CIA managers and operations officers have again been put "in a horrible position." Hayden recalled an officer asking, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?"

And...

Another intelligence official, who also asked not to be identified, said waterboarding and other harsh techniques "were meant to get hardened terrorists to a point where they were willing to answer questions." That capability, the official said, "is now gone."

COMMENT:  Great way to conduct national security, ay?  Imagine if we'd fought World War II under current conditions.

What we must finally realize is that there's an element in the Democratic Party that either doesn't care if we win or lose the war on terror, or would prefer that we lost.  It'll teach us a lesson, these people reason.  It's all our fault.  In some cases there are members of Congress, like David Obey of Wisconsin, who were in Congress during Vietnam and revel in doing the same damage now that they did then.  But the press simply will not confront this reality.  It's like the British press of the 1930s, more wary of those, like Winston Churchill, who were trying to save Britain than those who were selling her out.

May 19, 2009   Permalink 

EXTRAORDINARY - AT 7:02 A.M. ET:  CIA Director Leon Panetta is emerging as one of the most fascinating figures in this administration, and a real stand-up guy.  His willingness to take on his own party is extraordinary.  Maybe that's because, in his work, he sees what reality is each day:

CIA Director Leon Panetta warned Monday against making his agency a pawn in the nation’s partisan political battles, even as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that she was lied to by the CIA continues to reverberate in Washington.

“If they start to use these issues as political clubs to beat each other up with, that’s when we not only pay a price but this country pays a price,” Panetta said during a question-and-answer session following a lunchtime speech in Los Angeles. “One of the things that I really want to do as director of the CIA is to improve the relationship with the Congress…I realize that we’ve been through a rough period.”

Rough may be an understatement. Last week, Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to her during a 2002 briefing about interrogation techniques. On Friday, Panetta issued an unusual written statement to agency employees rebutting Pelosi’s claim, and Pelosi later backpedaled, saying it was the Bush administration that misled Congress.

COMMENT:  How long do you think it will be before Cindy Sheehan camps out on the steps of the CIA building in Langley, chanting "Panetta lied, thousands died"?

May 19, 2009   Permalink

MONDAY,  MAY 18,  2009

SWINE FLU HITS NEW YORK KIDS - AT 5:50 P.M. ET:  The swine flu story seems to have receded from the news.  In the TV industry we used to refer to the "disease of the month," because illness was often the subject of TV movies.  Swine flu seemed to be journalism's "disease of the month."  However, in New York the problem is growing, not receding.  From CBS:

The number of New York City schools ordered closed amid rapidly growing fears of swine flu has grown to 16 after the Health Department announced four more schools will shut down and one Manhattan private school said it would be closing its doors as well.

The news comes a day after the city reported its first death due to the H1N1 strain, and just as Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said he "fully expects" to see even more significant cases in the near future.

COMMENT:  I have no idea why the problem is growing in New York.  There's a lot of travel back and forth between New York and Mexico, but no one is linking that to the outbreaks.  This story is not over.

May 18, 2009

THE GREAT MEETING HAS BEEN HELD - AT 4:55 P.M. ET:  The leftist press must be very frustrated now that the Obama/Netanyahu meeting has been held, and the Israeli prime minister came out with his arms still attached. 

The meeting apparently was well scripted, with neither side changing any positions, but expressing them respectfully.  Obama wants a two-state solution, Netanyahu will commit - for now - only to a future in which the Palestinians govern themselves.

It was only on Iran that a little bit of news was made.  The president would not impose a rigid deadline on talks regarding Tehran's nuclear program, but said that he would reassess the situation by the end of the year, and that the talks must not go on forever.  From the Washington Post:

Acknowledging "deepening concern" over Iran's nuclear program, Obama today declined to set a deadline for Iran to end it, saying that he would wait until after that county's June presidential elections to directly engage its leaders. Obama said he should know by the end of the year whether those talks were making progress in persuading Iran to give up any ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu believes time is running out to stop Iran's nuclear program. He acknowledged today that Israel's interests coincide with those of Sunni Arab governments in the Middle East, including such important regional powers as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who also fear Shiite Iran's nuclear ambitions.

COMMENT:  Much will depend on whether Obama wants to move more to the center on foreign policy, something that's been hinted at in some recent decisions.  As we get into fall, the 2010 congressional elections will become more important in these calculations. 

May 18, 2009

HIT 'EM WHEN THEY'RE DOWN - AT 4:36 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON —The Obama administration will issue new national emissions and mileage requirements for cars and light trucks to resolve a long-running conflict among the states, the federal government and auto manufacturers, industry officials said Monday.

President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California’s tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.

COMMENT:  Notice that the story says "sold in the United States," not "made in the United States."  We are talking about a goal seven years away.  I suspect the reality will mean smaller, lighter, less safe cars. 

Look, this is a case where we can legitimately curse everyone.  On the one hand, this kind of pressure may well result in more economic chaos in the auto industry.  On the other hand, the industry could have been far more imaginative. 

I'd like to see a real scientific analysis of how much air improvement the 30 percent will really produce.  I'm not expecting it.

May 18, 2009

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS - AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  For those of you planning to vote in the upcoming Iranian election, there is significant advice this morning from the Supreme Guide.  Please take notes:

Iran's supreme leader on Monday urged Iranians not to vote for pro-Western candidates in the June 12 presidential election, though he gave no clear indication of whether he was supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds ultimate power in Iran, at the top of the clerical hierarchy above elected figures. His position is crucial for any candidate to win the vote, though he has never made his choice public.

COMMENT:  The hilarity here is that we're regularly assured by Iran's flacks in America that we should not listen to Ahmadinejad because Khamenei is the major power, as if Khamenei were some kind of pacifist.  Khamenei is a vicious, America-hating fanatic.  He is no moderate.  The story tries to say that he has not endorsed Ahmadinejad, but Ahmadinejad could not remain in power without him. Of course he's backing Ahamdinejad.  Let's wake up, journalists.

May 18, 2009   Permalink

THE NEW COMEBACK KID - AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  Bill Clinton billed himself the comeback kid in 1992, when he resurrected his presidential campaign after revelations of an affair with a woman named Jennifer Flowers. 

Now we must ask, do we have another comeback kid?  Is his name Dick Cheney?

Even some Republicans are horrified.  They don't want Cheney as a symbol of their struggling party.  But Cheney not only refuses to go away, he's emerged as the most articulate spokesman in the party for a strong, tough, uncompromising national-security policy.  Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt compares him to Churchill:

Scorn did not deter Churchill from using his immense visibility to sound the alarm about Hitler from 1932 forward, and his vast array of contacts within the government continually provided him with the updates he needed to push first Stanley Baldwin and then Neville Chamberlain to do more to attend to the U.K.’s defenses.

I thought of Churchill when Democrats and their partners in the mainstream media denounced former Vice President Dick Cheney last week. I remarked to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman on air that the left greets every Cheney appearance as Grendel escaped again from its den, but their defensiveness is extremely revealing.

Cheney isn’t appearing in order to advance his own career, or even to serve his party (as many unnamed Republicans are eager to tell their pals in the Beltway media). Cheney is talking directly to the American people about national security and the fecklessness with which the new president is taking decisions on matters of the utmost importance. 

COMMENT:  I've always thought of Dick Cheney as a superb public servant, willing to sacrifice popularity to do what he thinks is right.  Yes, he represents a risk for Republicans because he's so unpopular right now, but that can shift dramatically, as it did with Churchill.  I think Cheney is performing a valuable service, and I hope he continues to speak out, no matter what The New York Times might think of him.

May 18, 2009   Permalink

FROM THE HOTTEST FRONT - AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  Whenever possible, Urgent Agenda tries to develop private, trustworthy sources.  The following is from an American traveler to Afghanistan, very knowledgeable and well-connected, who reports on the reality on the ground in a conflict that is one of the main elements of Obama's foreign policy:

I think visitors to this theater are immediately struck by the lack of coherence in our message and in our strategy. There are so many power brokers, so many voices, so many players, that it is hard to quickly discern the overarching campaign plan that will lead us to success.

This is NOT McKiernan's fault.  It is due to a command structure here that is disfunctional because of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)/NATO imperatives. We lack unity of command and unity of effort. McKiernan has tried heroically to generate these through a variety of means, but the nature of coalition warfare creates dissension, back-channeling, passive resistance to orders, and a variety of strategic/operational goals among the suborinate commands.

The civilian side of the civ-mil approach to COIN (counter-insurgency) is even more fractured.  Who is the lead?  Who speaks for all?  Who makes the tough decisions and makes them stick?

The Obama administration had NOT solved the problem by putting in a strong military leader, a strong US ambassador, and a strong regional ambassador. The fundamental problem is that we are trying to prosecute an American war through a NATO apparatus.  One or the other
is going to have to change significantly...shuffling the leadership does nothing to address the systemic, structural problems of the C2 system here.

Some important questions to be answered:

1.  Is NATO still the lead?  If not, key players may depart.
2.  If NATO is still the lead, have they embraced the AF-PAK (Afghan-Pakistan) strategy?  Pakistan presents a whole new set of challenges that some of the partners are not eager to tackle.
3.  How will (incoming commander, U.S. Army Lieutenant General) Stanley McChrystal be received by an ISAF headquarters that is not necessarily dominated by the US?
4.  Where is (U.S. Army Lieutenant General David Rodriguez) going? What is his role?  Has NATO agreed to this new role?

Bottom line...McKiernan's departure is change for change's sake.  He fully understands COIN doctrine and knows the population is the center of gravity and must have the confidence to step forward and reject the insurgents.  He didn't have the troops to do this for most of his tour,
and the troops he did have did not necessarily share his vision.  He also did not have a strong civilian counterpart who could galvanize the international community players that dominate the diplomatic scene in Kabul.

We have changed the leaders.  But what really must change are the organizational dynamics.

COMMENT:  From the horse's mouth.

May 18, 2009   Permalink  

THE MOTHER OF ALL MEETINGS, NOT - AT 7:30 A.M. ET:  The president meets today with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The press is building this up as a clash of titans.  Netanyahu clearly does not share Obama's almost adolescent belief in negotiations, whereas Obama believes that a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a key to solving almost everything in the Mideast, including obesity and a shortage of sunscreen.

This will be a day of leaks, and spin, but I don't anticipate any real fireworks.  Obama is shrewd enough to know that he gains nothing by public ugliness with a close ally, and smart enough to realize the damage he did to himself by his cold treatment of British Prime Minister Brown a few months back.  When people start saying that a president treats friends worse than enemies, that president is due for a revision.

Netanyahu was prime minister during part of the Clinton years, in the 1990s.  Despite his American background and his flawless English, he is not a popular figure in Washington.  I recall the feelings about Abba Eban, the revered late foreign minister of Israel, who was described as a man impossible to like, but impossible not to respect.  The same may apply here.  Netanyahu is tough, and conniving, but it is impossible not to respect his deep deep concerns about a nuclear Iran, an issue not taken seriously enough among the newly exalted sophisticates of the age of Obama.

May 18, 2009   Permalink 

OH SO JUICY - AT 7:14 A.M. ET:  Bill Kristol delightfully stirs the pot and makes things even more tense for establishment liberals as he wonders out loud, or out print, wy CIA Director Leon Panetta came down so hard on Nancy Pelosi, when San Fran Nan accused the CIA, for a day at least, of lying: 

Commentators have been struck -- though not perhaps as much as they should have been -- by the extraordinary character of CIA Director Leon Panetta’s blunt and stark rebuke of Nancy Pelosi...

...But did Panetta simply decide on his own to send this letter?...

Panetta would have understood the political implications of humiliating a House speaker of his own party. He surely at least ran the letter by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to get clearance. It’s also possible that Panetta was encouraged to send the letter by Emanuel.

This is speculation, of course, but it's very informed speculation.  Kristol reminds us that the Bush 43 White House was instrumental in ousting Trent Lott as GOP leader in the Senate.  Maybe, Kristol theorizes, the president would prefer to deal with a new speaker, say House Majority Leader Steney Hoyer of Maryland.

What did Rahm Emanuel know about the Panetta letter, and when did he know it?

COMMENT:  Pelosi and Hoyer are not friendly.  Pelosi supported the morally questionable John Murtha for majority leader, and that is a wound that does not heal easily.  Pelosi also is a poster child for the political left, and Obama knows that he needs the middle to govern and get reelected.  Further, Pelosi is a symbol of a Congress that doesn't rank very high in the polls.

Should Pelosi start clearing out her office?  No.  She has her own power base, which extends beyond the powerful California delegation.  But if you get nicked enough, you bleed.  That is what we're seeing.

May 18, 2009   Permalink