Sean Berry Online

Now I Get It

2009-10-23T11:54:00.004-04:00

I was saying to someone a few minutes ago that I didn't get where the White House was going with this War on Fox thing. But perhaps this has something to do with it:

The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress - a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

The guys at Hot Air report that Bush created 5 czars in 5 years. Mr. Obama has created 17 czars in 8 months.

Anyway, here's the next bit in the article that caught my eye:

Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck [from Fox] - who senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be named" - began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has criticized.

Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck's positions.

1) Glenn Beck has obviously gotten into their heads. 2) By delegitimizing Fox News, the White House can declare that anything Fox News covers must be partisan and suspect. Beck and Fox want confirmation hearings for czars? Then it must be crazy to want confirmation hearings for czars.

New logic in the Age of Transparency.

Another thought: I wonder when it will occur to someone to raise hell that in these tough economic times, where unemployment is rising every month, the White House is doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the czars on the White House payroll. No questions asked.

Age of Transparency

2009-10-22T22:07:00.007-04:00

Barack Obama, in a memo to heads of departments and agencies, January 21, 2009: "A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, ’sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’ In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike. . . .

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."

October 22, 2009:

So Easy

2009-10-20T18:29:00.005-04:00

This stuff's becoming obligatory. Part of me doesn't feel like writing about it, the other parts says, "Well, might as well mention it. Maybe someone will care."

Maybe. But I doubt it.

In any event:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

That is an interesting way of doing things. Don`t say Fox is wrong, don`t say Fox is biased. Say they aren`t a news organization to begin with, and that no other news organization should listen to them.

This White House is becoming very good at creating its own reality which others are only too eager to follow.

The shady characters living in the White House must be laughing at how easy it all is.

The Unseemly President

2009-10-19T11:06:00.007-04:00

This president is a real drag. I'm trying to remember the last time a president singled out an entire sector of the American free market and called them warmongers, liars, and frauds, then declared that he was going to break their backs.

I wonder if he knows that the "Insurance Industry" is not a foreign power, but a bunch of his fellow countrymen trying to make a living. Too bad he's decided that all of these citizens are lying weasels that need to have their ears pinned back.

Mr. Rise-Above-the-Fray has turned out to be a petty jerk.

Jake Tapper:

President Obama is warning that, as the debate over health care reform draws to a close, the insurance industry is “rolling out the big guns” and “breaking open their massive war chest” as a “last ditch effort” to fight against reform.

“They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They’re flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they’re funding studies designed to mislead the American people,” the president said in his weekly address, “It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus.”

President Obama said that “like clockwork” the insurance industry “and their apologists” have gone on cable television waving “industry-funded” studies in the air to block reform.

“Every time we get close to passing reform," he said, "the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.”

"Well, not this time."

This from the clown that's stalling his generals on troop support while Americans get shot at in Afghanistan.

Get bent, tough guy.

Short Cuts

2009-10-11T00:14:00.002-04:00

Some more reviews of movies I was either too busy or too lazy to review before. Enjoy.

G.I. Joe: Not your daddy's G.I. Joe movie. America is mentioned in passing once or twice, but this revamp of the Joe team is headed by...NATO. Giggle at will. A lot of effects, not much acting, but a few skin tight suits to keep the boys happy. Since all of the West's real enemies gave up at the end of the Cold War, Hollywood has had to invent bad guys and heroes or just steal them from fifty-year-old comic books. Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? International terror? Come on, you can't make a movie about those boring subjects. We need something ripped from the headlines. Hence, this movie.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Highly enjoyable thriller with John Travolta and Denzel Washington. Does the original Pelham (starring Walter Matthau) justice. Travolta and some henchmen hijack a subway car and hold the people inside hostage. Mayhem ensues. Travolta is great. Washington is quite good, too, but Travolta has the better part. Always more fun to play the bad guy.

Crank 2: Completely implausible and totally over-the-top. Also fun as hell. Check your incredulity at the door and just enjoy. Jason Statham plays a guy who has an artificial heart which needs to be shocked every few minutes or he'll die. As if that's not enough, he has to find the guys who have his real heart while dodging cars and bullets along the way.

Antichrist: Great, great movie, but not for everybody. If you hated anything by Bergman, then you'll hate this flick. A man and a woman (they remain nameless throughout) lose their child in an accident. The man takes the woman to the woods to help her recover. He's a therapist. She's a decidedly uncooperative patient. There's blood and violence, but the horror is mostly of the psychological kind. This movie pulls no punches. Beware.

Two Fists, One Heart: Paint-by-numbers Australian flick about a boxer and his desire to please his father. And his girlfriend. And himself. This has Redemption Theme written all over it. You've seen it all before, but it's an okay movie.

Surrender

2009-10-08T17:43:00.005-04:00

Whoa.

This is a huge shift in foreign policy:

AP: President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.

The sharpened focus by Obama's team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.

McChrystal wants troops. The President doesn't want to send them. Solution? Don't declare the war's over - declare an enemy isn't an enemy.

As for the "increasingly unpopular war" stuff, it doesn't always mean what the media wants it to mean. If they mean "increasingly unpopular and pull out now," they're wrong. If they mean "increasingly unpopular with the way it's being fought," then they're on the money.

Eight years ago, the Taliban provided a haven for fanatical religious thugs to get boned up on how to shoot guns and knock down buildings. Eight years later, the US is prepared have them involved in Afghanistan's political future. Spin it any way you want, but this action only has one label: surrender.

Time: Last month, Taliban fighters in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, hijacked two NATO fuel tankers. The robbery escalated into an international incident because NATO aircraft, following a German request, bombed the two stranded tankers while civilians were siphoning free fuel. The death toll — more than 125 Afghans perished, nearly half of them civilians — overshadowed the gruesome fact that the Taliban had beheaded one of the tanker drivers. Beheadings and killings of NATO supply drivers are a common occurrence, according to several private security contractors.

Wonderful ally, that Taliban. Man, the outlook for the political future in Afghanistan looks pretty good, huh?

The Most Trusted Name in News

2009-10-06T02:17:00.005-04:00

Via Hot Air.

The guys at CNN are unbelievable.

Here's Wolf Blitzer (the man who went -$4600 on Celebrity Jeopardy) and crew fact checking an SNL skit about Obama. Talk about sticking up for your guy. Fact checking a negative comedy skit about a politician? CNN's more transparent than a window.

At the end of the clip, they find time to pull out SNL's take on Sarah Palin, which they call..."dead on."

My favorite CNN/YouTube clip is underneath this one.

Fast forward to 1:23 to see your Fact Checker in all his glory:

The Bus Idles - McChrystal

2009-10-05T12:45:00.006-04:00

From the Telegraph:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid...

Word is the president is furious over McChrystal's speech. A taste:

[McChrystal] told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

That may be, General, but it isn't your problem. Your problem is to follow orders from your civilian commanders. Public support and long term strategy are concerns of the president. Your job is to carry out orders until you retire or get canned.

I may agree with McChrystal's assessment, but you can't have a military commander mouthing off in another country about how much smarter he is than the president. It smacks of insubordination and brings up memories of MacArthur vs. Truman. Didn't end so well for MacArthur.

One more speech like this and expect the bus to arrive for McChrystal.

How Do You Like Me Now?

2009-10-02T11:35:00.004-04:00

I'm not sure if this will teach him that he's the President of the United States and not the President of The Obama Campaign, but it might give him a clue.

All of that apologizing, all of those world tours with open hands instead of clenched fists, all of those Facebook friends telling him to save the world...and the Olympic Games tell his home town to shove it.

The Olympics isn't going to the Windy City.

Oprah, Michelle, Barack, how could they lose?

They just did.

I fail to understand why he hung his hat on this one. Some political capital went down the drain on trying to use his reputation and celebrity to bring a sporting event to his home town. The bloom is definitely off the rose.

The Hyperbole Bus

2009-10-02T11:25:00.004-04:00

It looks like Obama isn't alone in jumping aboard the Hyperbole Bus today.

Here's Peggy Noonan, with more of her insipid flowery prose:

Who are The Elders? They set the standards. They hand down the lore. They're the oldest and wisest. By proceeding through the world each day with dignity and humanity, they show the young what it is that should be emulated. They're the tribal chieftains. This role has probably existed since caveman days, because people need guidance and encouragement, they need to be heartened by examples of endurance. They need to be inspired.

Who are these Elders-with-a-capital-E of which she speaks?

Newspaper reporters and TV anchormen.

She begins the piece with this:

When William Safire died the other day, we lost one of the Elders of journalism and the argumentative arts. We've been losing a lot of them lately: Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. "The stars seem to be going out one by one," said Howard Stringer at Cronkite's memorial.

No, the piece isn't satirical. Yes, Pegs really believes this stuff.

Get Over Yourself (Updated)

2009-10-02T10:37:00.009-04:00

Here's the prez during an address to the Olympics committee, in a speech supposedly about bringing the Olympics to Chicago. He usually peppers his speeches with a lot of "I this" and "Me that." But he hits a homer with this "everyone on the planet was glued to the TV to see me win my election" stuff:

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. It sprung from the hope that in this ever-shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength and cause for celebration; and that with sustained work and determination, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this Earth.

Somehow - somehow - this has something to do with running the 100 meter dash.

His memories of the election are always framed as if he won a revolution and the evil Bush administration was removed from office before they could completely destroy the world. His comments at a Q&A, via Hot Air:

“We’ve got everyone. This could be a meeting in Chicago, because we look like the world. Over the last several years sometimes that fundamental truth about the United States has been lost,” he said.

“One of the legacies of this Olympic Games would be the restoration of that understanding of what the United States is all about and a recognition of how we are linked to the world.”

Update: I guess they didn't want to come to Chicago to restore America's rep after all. Chicago got knocked out in the first round of votes.

See My Movie. And Know Your Place.

2009-09-30T10:34:00.005-04:00

Vis-a-vis Whoopi Goldberg saying that Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape," and that Europeans look at 13-year-old girls differently than US citizens, here's director Luc Besson, as quoted in the Telegraph: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."

Just so. The kicker is, Besson is French. More proof that Goldberg's theory is insane. The fact that no one is calling for her to be canned is telling.

Besson's comments came after he refused to sign a petition calling for Polanski's release. The Telegraph reports that 100 movie bigwigs have signed it so far.

Could Hollywood be any more removed from the people that they're trying to sell tickets to? This is rape, not shoplifting.

Here's a post I wrote a while back. I think it holds water:

Musing on Fans, April 6, 2009

I was doing some work last night and had the TV on in the background. The Academy of Country Music Awards was on. As company, it was good enough for me. During the broadcast, I heard the presenters and award recipients say the word "fans" dozens of times. Fans-this, fans-that. "I'd like to thank the fans." And, "If it wasn't for the fans, I wouldn't be here." And, "The fans made this song a hit." The speeches were maybe ten or fifteen seconds long, and all of them revolved around record labels, family, and fans.

Country music is good at marketing itself to the people that matter: the fans that buy albums and listen to the radio.

Contrast that with the Oscars, where the show is designed to prove how far the movie business has gone in alienating its audience. Every speech is about "me," followed by an endless string of names that the home audience has never heard of. Agents, script consultants, producers, on and on.

A few years back, Hilary Swank made the faux pas of forgetting to mention her husband during her Academy Award speech. She was knocked around for it by the rags. I asked: why? It was perfectly understandable. These people dispose of marriages like coffee cups. (Swank is since divorced).

After thanking their sycophants, movie stars then get on a soap box. You have the writer of Milk preaching for gay rights, Sean Penn thanking "Commies" and "homo lovers" for granting him the Best Actor award, and any number of stars bashing the former US President. When they're finished, they go to a ritzy after-party, get drunk, and sometimes drink and drive. Want to meet a movie star? Depends how much they've had to drink and how fast they're driving. Movie stars can afford to buy ten thousand BMWs, but not one chauffeur.

During this year's Oscars, I heard the word "fans" exactly twice, one time as a joke from Will Smith (he correctly observed that action movies are great because they have one thing that most Oscar contenders don't: fans). Someone else mentioned the fans almost by accident. And that was that. All of the other speeches were about people we've never seen and never will.

Think about that. A room full of people, rich because people buy tickets to watch what they do, and it never crosses their mind to thank the people buying the tickets.

It really is amazing that people still line up to meet movie stars, or ask for their autograph, or even go to the movies. We know these people don't give a damn about us. To paraphrase Warhol, they tell us how to think, how to vote, how to behave and, more importantly, how to look while we're behaving. We pay their salaries and treat them like royalty while they treat us with indifference. They'd just as soon never meet us, let alone shake our hands. But we love them.

Amazing. Amusing.

Whoopi Goldberg

2009-09-29T10:37:00.010-04:00

This gave me a sick, creepy feeling. Watching someone split hairs about rape vs. rape-rape, whatever the hell that means. My comments follow.

Polanski's a good film director, and I like most of his movies. But he's a confessed rapist of a 13-year-old girl, and he skipped out before being sentenced. You can give his movies all the five stars you want, but facts are facts: he never paid for the crime of drugging and raping a girl.

Whoopi Goldberg goes for the gusto in defence of a Hollywood family member. First she gives us a strange definition of rape and rape-rape, then tells us that in some parts of the world, 13-year-olds are looked upon as fair game. Goldberg: "Well, you know, I have to tell you, again, we're, we're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, in the rest of Europe, they are seen often times--"

She was interrupted before finishing what would have been an abysmal statement. But you get her drift. She finally closes the point thus: "I do know that not everybody sees things the way that we see things."

Ah. Polanski got the shaft because US rape laws are too narrow for a hip Euro guy like Polanski.

This is disgusting.

They save the best for last, though, as all of The View ladies break every rule in the feminist handbook and blame the victim's mother and the victim herself for being with Polanski in the first place.

Two thoughts: If the exact same language had been used on Jay Leno or Glenn Beck's shows, the screams for a boycott would be deafening. Considering The View's target audience is primarily homemaking women who probably have kids, Goldberg should be canned.

Thoughts on Iranian Nukes

2009-09-29T02:03:00.021-04:00

This blog is starting to turn into the "Iran Nuke Carnival," but you can't blame me. Just a day after being told that the US, France, and Britain are standing shoulder-to-shoulder against Iran having a nuke, the Iranians responded by launching a few test missiles into the sky.

Probably not the response the Shoulders were waiting for.

So threats don't work. What's new? But watch this "nuclear expert" if you want to have a good laugh. My comments follow.

If this is what passes for "expert opinion" on the nuclear front, I don't want to be around this dude when the clock strikes midnight. Words like this are dying for a punchline.

Let me get this straight: Iran is developing nuclear material that they say is for fuel and environmental purposes. They consistently lie about their nuclear program, and have been caught with at least one secret nuclear facility doing who-knows-what. Their leader says that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and "obliterated." After being warned to knock off the nuclear talk, they fire test missiles into the sky by way of saying, "Eat me." And this "expert" thinks the US has Ahmadinejad right where they want him, and that Iran is just playing macho by heaving a few missiles into the air.

This stuff reminds me of Churchill, who asked the House of Commons if they believed Hitler was using his new factories to make lederhosen and sausages.

Here's Nuke Expert: "Sometimes countries like Iran or North Korea will make a show of force largely for domestic purposes, before they make a concession." Yes. That's called "lying." And anyway, his examples are pretty poor. North Korea made concessions, sure, until they didn't have to. They finally built some nukes. Game over. How do you like me now?

More from Nuke Expert: "Ahmadinejad has lost support of the Iranian people...in many ways, he has little choice but to make concessions." Where did they find this clown? Ahmadinejad didn't have the support of the Iranian people in August. So he shot them. Does this moron seriously believe that Ahmadinejad cares a whit what the Iranian people think? He has the power to crush them whenever he feels like it.

"New UN sanctions...Obama and the allies are firm...It's not even clear whether Ahmadinejad will meet with us October 1st. He may feel so weakened that he wants to postpone those talks."

What?

Postponing the talks is not a sign of "weakness." It's a sign of strength. As in, "Make me." The dictator is in jerk-people-around mode. It's a tactic that has been employed a number of times throughout history and usually works out well for the dictator, at least in the short term. And when it comes to acquiring nuclear weapons, the short term is all that matters.

Whether Ahmadinejad shows up to the talks or not, it plays into his hands. All he needs is time. With buffoons like Nuke Expert claiming that there will be new UN sanctions "by the end of the year," Ahmadinejad is laughing.

Time. All he wants is time. And it looks like he's going to get it.

Look at it from Ahmadinejad's point of view. He must believe in his bones that the West is made up of fools and pushovers. He has women shot in the streets. People hanged for being homosexual. Says Israel must die. Watched North Korea make a bomb, sanctions be damned. Watched Russia march into Georgia, the West powerless to stop it. He's seen the US scrap their missile defence system in eastern Europe. When he had people shot in Iran last month, the US did not come out and immediately condemn it. And after all of this, he receives an invitation to speak at the UN in New York City of all places, where he gives a speech insulting the US, indicts them as murderers, and declares that the world is run by Jews. Then he flies home.

Let's face it: to him, we are a joke. He won't listen to us because he thinks we're idiots.

By the way, have you read or heard his speech to the UN? It's all in there, especially the stuff about Jews running the world. Amazing how this stuff never gets old. Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad's view is that the Jews are responsible for the world's problems and that, when the time comes, they must be eliminated. Everything is the Jews' fault. The Zionist Conspiracy lives on. Here's Ahmadinejad:

The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists...This means that the great people of America and various nations of Europe need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.

Here is Adolf Hitler:

I today want to be a prophet again: if international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

70 years, and nothing changes for these megalomaniacs: it's the Jews' fault. Other countries may make war, but only because the Jew made them do it. Hitler's speech was to the Reichstag in 1939. A friendly crowd. 70 years later, the same venomous ravings are being spat out at a podium in New York City to a body called the United Nations. That's progress. (Incidentally, I don't recall Hitler calling the West "morons." He just said the Western powers were "worms," and "puny" ones at that. But they had plenty of meetings with him).

So, Mr. Nuke Expert, are you willing to put your reputation on the line trying to read the mind of a maniac who is simply Adolf Hitler in a sport coat?

But then, a question: what else can Obama and the Allies do? When someone is hell bent on making a nuclear weapon, and he sits inside his borders saying take a hike, there's really only one choice. It's a hell of a choice, and I can't see any allies making it anytime soon. They simply won't want to believe that the man can't listen to reason. But there is no reasoning with this man. He's impervious to it. If you met him at a party you'd either leave the room or deck him. But as a president he is worth trusting. Bizarre, yet perfectly normal.

My guess: unless destroyed by internal intrigue, Iran's regime ends up with a nuclear weapon sometime in the not-too-distant future, and once they have it, the entire world changes. They will have seized the initiative in the Middle East and international politics will be more uncertain than at the height of the Cold War.

Photo: EPA

Between the Lines

2009-09-26T21:18:00.017-04:00

It's not his fault. They all do it. The hollow words, the meaningless threats, the tired warnings. That sound you hear is the roar of inevitability.

Ask North Korea. Threats and threats and threats. Then they made a nuke, test fired a missile into the Yellow Sea, and now nobody says boo. There they sit. The game's over.

The one guy who didn't follow the script was George W. Bush. Right or wrong, he did something after threats didn't work. It got him a two-term presidency, but it also got him lambasted as a dummy and an evil dictator the world over. Politicians want the former, but not at the price of the latter.

There's the big L word: legacy. Or the G word: guts. They don't always go together too well.

Some guys do well with their legacy by going the gutsy route, but it's so damn risky. Better to play it the easy way, the way most Western politicians do when faced with thugs.

Here's President Obama's weekly address from this morning. I'm reading between the lines:

This week, we joined with the United Kingdom and France [this is NOT a unilateral decision] in presenting evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility to enrich uranium [this is different then the totally out in the open facility; they have two]. This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime [which didn't stop North Korea, but hey, there's always hope], and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion [please ignore the word "pattern," as it might make you believe that they won't change their tune after we ask pretty please]. That is why international negotiations [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency [as opposed to before; now it's important].

My offer of a serious, meaningful dialogue to resolve this issue remains open [no doubt the Iranian dictators will listen this time - because we're serious]. But Iran must now cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and take action to demonstrate its peaceful intentions [last month they shot women in the street for taking part in political demonstrations; the regime also hangs people for the crime of being gay; but now they have a chance to show their peaceful intentions; look, we all know this a load of bull, but I have to say this stuff].

On this, the international community [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] is more united than ever before. Yesterday, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] in condemning Iran’s program. In our meetings and public statements, President Medvedev of Russia and I agreed [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera] that Iran must pursue a new course or face consequences. All of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], and Germany [this is NOT a unilateral decision, et cetera], have made it clear that Iran must fulfill its responsibilities [okay, okay; Iran doesn't have any responsibilities except to themselves, but we're going to pretend that they share the same world view as us. We're making it up. Easier that way].

Iran’s leaders must now choose [I hate using that 'with us/with the terrorists' language, but I wrote this first thing in the morning and I was still a little groggy. Don't ask me about it later] – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations. Or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people [sure, this paragraph was full of beans, but cut me some slack. Iran doesn't have any responsibilities, true, and they don't care if they're isolated, fine, and they don't care about their own people, okay. But...well, what do you want me to say? It's all a farce, anyway].

These are the urgent threats of our time. And the United States is committed to a new chapter of international cooperation [this is NOT a unilateral decision, etc. Huh? Come again? Oh. How can there be international cooperation when nobody's cooperating? Search me.] to meet them. This new chapter will not be written in one week or even one year [sorry, but this my out. I know it's a bit slippery, but come on, there's nothing I can do about this stuff. Iran's going to get a nuke one way or the other. If they get it within a year, I need to be able to say that it was going to take more than a year to get international cooperation kick started. A week, a year, who cares? I'd say 'decade' but you'd think I flipped my lid]. But we have begun. And for the American people and the people of the world [in case you thought this was a unilateral decision], it will mean greater security and prosperity for years to come [in other words, we aren't going to accomplish jack; but it feels good to know that in some mystic future, you'll have a safe, secure life. Anybody got a glass of water?].

Pressure For Whom?

2009-09-25T10:26:00.004-04:00

Jake Tapper:

This morning President Obama, French President Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will accuse Iran of building a clandestine underground nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, which Iran's leaders have hidden from weapons inspectors, senior administration officials tell ABC News...

The president is expected to say that this news "increases pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program," a senior administration official tells ABC News. He will described "great and increasing doubts about the strictly peaceful nature of the program -- which is what the Iranians suggest."

Uhhhh...How does this even remotely increase pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program? Saddam Hussein violated international law for years, ignored sanction after sanction, kicked weapons inspectors out of his country, and refused to say where his weapons of mass destruction were. So Bush invaded and bingo, people around the world called Bush's war illegal and dubbed him Hitler.

Will Obama et al have have the stones to roll the dice like that? Unlikely. Obama has been saying for over a year that he's willing to have a chat with Iran. He said this even though he knew about the second secret reactor. So for him, this is just old news. When the US failed to condemn Ahmadinejad's "election" and the violence that followed, this sent a clear message: no matter what happens, we're still willing to talk. And talk. And talk. Which translates as "time."

At a stretch, I can one day see some cruise missiles or an Israeli airstrike. But a full-on, "Here's your pressure, jerkwad" invasion is a fantasy. And Ahmadinejad knows it.

75 Years. In Case You Were Curious.

2009-09-23T21:08:00.002-04:00

Reuters: A British store is launching a range of underpants for left-handed men, an innovation it says will save them both time and embarrassment in front of the porcelain.

The new range, by UK-based Hom, will have a horizontal opening instead of a vertical slit accessed from the right-hand side, breaking a tradition that has lasted for 75 years.

"In our view, this is a vital step toward equality for left-handed men," said Rob Faucherand of Debenhams store.

Harper

2009-09-23T18:32:00.003-04:00

Well, maybe someone with a fancy title was reading the Twitter reports of women being gunned down in the streets of Tehran.

"It's Not Every Day They Get To Hang Out With Actual NFL Athletes."

2009-09-23T11:08:00.003-04:00

The Detroit Lions haven't won a game this season.

If that has a familiar ring to it, it should. They didn't win a game last season, either.

NFL Players Mentor Troubled Detroit Lions

The Already Forgotten War

2009-09-22T14:16:00.008-04:00

The below clip of Krauthammer ties in with something me and my old man were tossing around the other day. My dad was musing about President Obama's waffling on missile shields, Afghanistan, and the like. My theory: President Obama doesn't care about foreign policy, or at least looks at it as an exceedingly uninteresting and inconvenient part of a president's job.

Mr. Obama ran on a domestic policy platform, period. He made some mention of Afghanistan, mostly as a sop to war hawks (Iraq is a crime, Afghanistan is where it's at), but domestic policy was his focus. "Yes we can!" and "Change we can believe in!" were not slogans meant for Iraq, Afghanistan, international terrorism, Iranian nukes, Russian expansionism, or any other foreign policy matter.

He has big ideas for changing the United States from coast to coast, but not much interest in what happens beyond its borders. In fact, you could make a case that the scrapping of the missile defence shield in eastern Europe, and the new focus on dismantling the US nuclear arsenal, could be tied in with his domestic agenda: he needs to find some way to pay for all of his domestic policies. Why not save a bundle on the foreign policy side? And then there's this:McClatchy: Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who're trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they're making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.
Why might they not be ready for it? Try the price tag:The cost of the war also soared. According to Defense Department figures, the Afghan war was costing the Pentagon $2 billion a month as of last October. By June, that cost had climbed to $6.7 billion a month — and that was before most of the additional troops had arrived.
Afghanistan as an issue was simply Obama's way of saying, "I can play tough, too," while not having to act like it or spend money on it. He could appease the anti-war supporters by closing Gitmo, knocking Bush, and promising to pull out of Iraq. The war hawks he could appease by putting a few troops in Afghanistan. But now the bill is on the table. With so many rotten headlines about deficits and debts due to his social policies, the financial cost of war has to be giving him pause. And pausing he is.

As Krauthammer points out, the Afghanistan smoke screen is getting more thin by the day, or by the speech. In March, Mr. Obama said that a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan was complete. This week, he said the US has no clear strategy in Afghanistan. For a warlord (which is what a war-making president is), this is flagrantly irresponsible. Was the speech in March a lie, an embellishment, or a mistake? As Krauthammer says, it's as if the speech and the strategy never happened.

The fact that Americans are getting shot at while this charade carries on makes it all the more serious. Canadians are also putting their necks on the block in Afghanistan and Canadians wouldn't be there if the US hadn't invaded that country in the first place. Now Canuck troops are dangling on the line as their ally's leader slowly ponders if he can find his butt with both hands and a flashlight, or if he can afford the flashlight anyway.

Result? General McChrystal, US commander in Afghanistan, is threatening to walk.

My question: will Afghanistan, like Korea, become a "forgotten war?" Unlike Korea, however, will it become a "forgotten war" while it's still being fought? It looks like it.

Photo: Telegraph

Stranger and Stranger

2009-09-21T15:06:00.013-04:00

From The Guardian. My comments follow.
Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads...

In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. "This is one of the most critical issues we face," the foreign secretary writes. "Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists."
Might as well pull out the old cliche of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Paving the way for a world without nuclear weapons is simply impossible. It's amusing that a foreign secretary could say something like that with a straight face. Nuclear weapons exist and they always will. Done deal.

Nukes are the ultimate weapon. It's the only "big stick" left. They will not become obsolete anytime soon. If something does replace nuclear weapons, it's awful to consider what that something would be. In any event, envisioning a world without nukes is self-deception. Feels good, means squat.

A few points on Obama's deal above:

1) Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads. No great surprise. He scrapped a missile shield on the weekend, and he wants to scrap nukes now. Under his worldview, those two go hand in hand. I don't have much problem with reducing 1000 nukes to 100, if only because 100 would probably do the trick. Besides, it would be one humdinger of a conflict if 100 nukes were brought into play. Bush invading Afghanistan is one thing. A president - any president - dropping nukes on another country - any country - would be a nightmare of controversy and a huge test of political will and intestinal fortitude.

This isn't 1945. A nuke launched nowadays would have to be preceded by a problem that makes Iraq look like a bike ride. If that day comes, health care debates will be the last thing on anybody's mind.

What's worrying about Obama's take is that, once again, nobody had to do anything to bring it about. No concessions, no quid pro quo. Note to thug states: If this is what he does without being asked, imagine what he'll do if you pretend to be Mr. Nice Guy for a while.

2) Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons. That's disturbing. I don't exactly know what the "rules" are now, nor do I think I should know. I certainly don't think terrorists and thug regimes should know.

3) Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads. Good luck with that. In order to guarantee if something works, you have to test it. That is a bedrock principle of the scientific method. It's what separates science from nonsense. NASA put Alan Shepard into space, but it took years of testing and a bunch of dead rockets (not to mention monkeys) before he was allowed to climb aboard Freedom 7.

Nuclear warheads may by "icky" to people that got the heebie-jeebies while reading Nuclear Winter during the Cold War, but facts are facts. Asking someone to guarantee a product's reliability without allowing them to build or test the product is irresponsible. In fact, it's idiotic. That's as close as I've come to calling Mr. Obama a nasty name, but it's all I can find that fits: idiotic. The whole point of having a weapon is to have it available for use. What good does it do to find mushroom clouds over the US, then turn to your geek squad and say, "Okay. Better build that new nuke. You're sure it'll work, right?"

The more I look at this guy, the more I think he's playing president as opposed to living it. He's also spending a lot of time making the US weaker and more supplicant, if not in fact then at least in appearance. A dangerous habit.

Frank Rich and Cindy Sheehan

2009-09-20T11:25:00.011-04:00

Frank Rich pulls out all the stops on this one: Sarah Palin as Grand Wizard of the Klan. Joe Wilson stepping over the free speech line. People protesting against their government = violent rage. Joe Wilson giving carte blanche to the oh-so-many nutcases out there, and man, there's plenty of 'em.

NYT: With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the “real America.” Joe Wilson may or may not be in that camp, but, either way, that’s not the news. As we watched and rewatched the South Carolina congressman’s star turn, what grabbed us was the act itself.

What made the lone, piercing cry of “You lie!” shocking was that it breached a previously secure barrier. It was the first time that the violent rage surging in town-hall meetings all summer blasted into the same room as the president. Wilson’s televised shout was tantamount to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When he later explained that his behavior was “spontaneous” rather than premeditated, that was even more disturbing. It’s not good for the country that a lawmaker can’t control his anger at Barack Obama. It gives permission to crazy people.

Where was all this talk when Cindy Sheehan and thousands of others were protesting Bush at every turn?

Speaking of which, I have to tip my hat to Cindy Sheeehan. I thought she was just some loudmouth who would pipe down as soon as Bush left office. Turns out, she really is anti-war, no matter who is boss. This was Sheehan last month:

Cindy Sheehan and other antiwar activists held a press conference today at the Oak Bluffs School, where the White House press corps is working as its reports on President Obama during his vacation in Martha's Vineyard

Sheehan said that she's opposing Obama the same way she opposed George W. Bush. "The facade has changed but policies remain the same," she told reporters. "Integrity in our movement means we have to do same for Obama as we did for Bush."

Who knew that Cindy Sheehan would give me a cold slap of integrity right in the kisser?

Funny, though. I don't hear much about her these days. It could have something to do with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's attitude: "Anybody who has given a son to this country has made an enormous sacrifice, and you have to be sympathetic. But enough already."

Odd. A few years back, Charlie gave interviews to Sheehan with words like, "Mom Stands Her Ground," and "Can Anti-War Moms Stop Bush?" written on the screen.

Now it's, "Shut up, Cindy."

The Bear's Back (II)

2009-09-19T11:37:00.014-04:00

Since the US has sold old the Czech Republic and Poland (again - won't those Czechs ever learn?), I posit a what-if question: if Russia were to send tanks and troops into Poland today, what would the US or other Western "powers" do about it?

Every way I look at it, the answer is, "Nothing."

Mark Steyn has a piece today about relying on the kindness of strangers:

Some of them very strange. Kim Jong-il wouldn't really let fly at South Korea or Japan, would he? Even if some quasi-Talibanny types wound up sitting on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, they wouldn't really do anything with them, would they? OK, Putin can be a bit heavy-handed when dealing with Eastern Europe, and his definition of "Eastern" seems to stretch ever further west, but he's not going to be sending the tanks back into Prague and Budapest, is he? I mean, c'mon …

Indeed.

I wrote a while back that Russia has been stretching its sphere of influence not east or west, but all over. Venezuela and Cuba are back in the game and now the Bear is singing a victory song as Poland is up for grabs.

"Ah, come on, it ain't that bad. It's just missile defence."

Maybe. But I never, ever believed that the Soviet Union collapsed because they changed their minds on subjects like power, money, power, culture, and power. The Cold War ended because the Soviets Union went broke. But their idea of power never changed and they've recognized in the last few years that they can get their mojo back.

Slowly but surely they are seeing that the "other side" doesn't have a backbone. Georgia last year, missile defense this year, and the Russian navy cruising the Caribbean with nary a harsh word - publicly - from the US.

There's a lot of that going on right now: "What's in it for the US - publicly?" Many writers are assuming, or hoping, that there's a private backroom deal behind the US capitulation on the eastern European missile shield. But my gut feeling is that there isn't. Here's Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer:

“It is no secret that this missile defense shield has been a thorn in Russia’s side,” said New York Senator Chuck Schumer in a blunt statement belying the White House’s insistence that the shift was based purely on intelligence and technical considerations.

“President Obama is clearly demonstrating his willingness to reset relations between our two countries, and the Russians should return the gesture,’ Schumer said. “It is time for Russia to join our push to impose stricter sanctions on Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.”

Good grief. Putin and his buddies aren't nearly as susceptible to feel-good talking points as New York voters. The Russians should do a lot of things. But telling a power hungry regime what they should do is nothing but a waste of time and air.

Yes, yes, we all know the US is willing to 'reset' relations with Russia. We've got that point by now. They proved it with Hillary's visit and the prop 'reset' button (a more embarrassing display of childlike diplomacy is hard to imagine), by allowing the Russians to cruise the waters around the United States with impunity, and by not getting too upset when the Russians met with the Iranians in June to talk about...well, what did they talk about? Good question, but when the Israelis visited Moscow last week, here's the word: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to Moscow on Monday was part of quiet diplomacy between Russia and Israel over Russia's plan to supply S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, Haaretz has learned.

Just so we're clear: the US is scrapping the planned missile shield in Europe in order to please the Russians, whom the US hopes will put pressure on Iran not to build nukes, while the Russians are supplying missiles to defend Iranian installations, which would be used as a base to wipe Israel - the only ally the US has in the region - off the map.

For the Russians, this is beautiful. The Americans are softening up, and the Israelis are now coming to Moscow to kiss the ring and say pretty please. You tell me: who's in charge of Europe and the Middle East now?

The Wall Street Journal:

The Kremlin saw U.S. missile-defense plans as one of a long list of provocations by the Bush administration that need to be reversed to get the relationship back on track.

For the moment, Russian officials say they are encouraged by Washington's gentler tone and conciliatory moves. But the Kremlin remains deeply suspicious that the new U.S. administration will take advantage of any Russian concessions the way it feels the Bush administration did.

I'm not sure they have to worry about that.

This idea of a having a "relationship" with Russia is a strange one. What have they done for the US since the Cold War, besides, say, lose it? I don't see any Russian troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. They have steadfastly refused to tell Iran to knock off their nuclear ambitions, and they didn't listen to a word of "outrage" when they invaded Georgia or meddled in Ukrainian politics. (There is no doubt in my mind that the Russian move in Georgia was in part payback for the West - ie, the United States - recognizing Kosovo, an act which the Russians regarded as illegal and "cynical." They should talk. But I think the main reason they were upset about this is that eastern Europe was already fragmented enough. The very existence of Kosovo was an inconvenience, especially if Kosovo one day became part of NATO. Picking up the pieces gets harder when there's more pieces to pick up).

Question: if the US were involved in a political conflict and lost, for example, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, do you not think they would want them back, the earlier the better? That is what is happening in Russia now (it also happened in the US; it was called the Civil War). The Russians lost Poland, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, the Ukraine, so forth, but they did not lose them by choice, and they weren't powerful enough to hold a shooting war over it, otherwise they wouldn't have lost them in the first place.

It's been only 20 years since the fall of the "Union." They haven't gotten over it and they never will.

The Bear is loving this latest episode in their comeback story. They should be. I wonder what they'll do next. Or, as in this case, if they'll have to do anything at all.

Photo: AFP: Fabrice Coffrini

Crazy

2009-09-19T11:15:00.002-04:00

AP: A criminally insane killer from eastern Washington is on the run after escaping during a field trip to the county fair that his mental hospital organized.

Why such a dangerous person was out in public was a question many, including Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, were asking as authorities searched for Phillip Arnold Paul...

Paul was committed after he was acquitted by reason of insanity in the 1987 slaying of an elderly woman, whose body he soaked in gasoline to throw off search dogs. Paul buried the woman's remains in her flower garden.

In 1991, Paul walked away during a day trip to a Washington lake and was later captured. He attacked a sheriff's deputy in the jail booking area, knocking him unconscious, and was convicted of first-degree escape and second-degree assault.

The Most Trusted Name In News

2009-09-18T13:24:00.005-04:00

It looks like it's "pick on the media day" over at Hot Air. I'll play along. They link to this clip of Wolf Blitzer taking part in Celebrity Jeopardy and...he doesn't do so well.

Wolf must have signed an ironclad contract with the guys at Jeopardy. I'm guessing his agent couldn't get the episode yanked.

(If you don't have time to watch the almost unwatchable beating, here's the gist: Andy Richter, the comic from The Tonight Show, utterly thrashes him. It's so bad, Wolf ends up with -$4600, and Trebek has to chuck him a lifeline. Fast forward to 7:02 for the embarrassing conclusion, though kudos to Richter for picking up $68000 for a children's hospital).