SECOND EVENING POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 7:20 p.m. ET

OBAMA, BIG OIL...AND 22

Turns out there's quite a bit of hypocrisy, or let's call it forgetfulness, on Barack Obama's part when it comes to energy policy - especially the role of big oil.  And the AP, to its credit, exposes it in a well-reported story.

I'll get to that in a moment.  But first, you probably want to know why we have the number "22" in our headline.   It's because, buried deep in the story on energy, is this utterly intriguing quote from Barack Obama:

"I'm generally not in favor of term limits," he said. "Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections." 

I have said here before that one of my fears about Obama is that he will try to repeal the 22nd Amendment, limiting a president to two terms.  I have no direct evidence to support that.  It's a gut feeling.  But we now have his on-the-record statement about term limits.  My uneasiness increases.

On oil:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity...

...However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

Pay no attention.  Pay no attention.  Nothing to see here.  He was just practicing, learning the ways of the Senate.  That was three years ago.  There's a new Obama.  Don't you realize that?

No.

August 5, 2008.      Permalink          

EARLY EVENING POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 6:21 p.m. ET

BULLETIN!!

Highest urgency.  Drop everything.  This is what the internet is for.

I have just been informed that a new survey reveals that women would rather carpool or go on vacation with Barack Obama than with John McCain.

I know this information will change your life.

Here are the facts.  Devour them:

Women would rather carpool or go on vacation with Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama than with his Republican rival John McCain, a new poll of U.S. women voters showed on Tuesday.

The poll showed Obama holds a strong lead among all women voters but McCain polls better with white women, seniors and stay-at-home moms.

"There's no question that Senator Obama wins the likability contest," said pollster Kellyanne Conway, adding that those who like Obama cited his personal attributes, while those who like McCain cited his experience and qualifications.

Who cares about experience and qualifications?  What are we talkin' 'bout here, war and peace or somethin'?

Asked who they planned to vote for in November, Obama led in all age groups except the over-65s, where McCain led by 46 percent to 37 percent. Women were split on racial lines, with blacks picking Obama by 89 percent to 4 percent and Hispanics by 62 percent to 21 percent. White women favored McCain by 47 percent to 38 percent.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, led among professionals, white collar and blue collar workers, part time workers and retired women. The only occupation category where McCain led was "stay home," 51 percent to 34 percent.

It's those mothers again.  What could they possibly know?

And on this basis the future of the Republic will be decided.

August 5,  2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 2:44 p.m. ET

BOLTON

Reader Joseph J. Gallick notes today's excellent piece by John Bolton on the unsuccessful nuclear talks with Iran:

This weekend, yet another "deadline" passed for Iran to indicate it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Like so many other deadlines during these five years of European-led negotiations, this one died quietly, with Brussels diplomats saying that no one seriously expected any real work on a Saturday.

Of course.  I should have thought of that.  How could anyone expect diplomats to do any real work on nuclear annihilation on a Saturday.

The rationality of continued Western negotiations with Iran depends critically on two assumptions: that Iran is far enough away from having deliverable nuclear weapons that we don't incur excessive risks by talking; and that by talking we don't materially impede the option to use military force...

...Neither assumption is correct. Can we believe that if diplomacy fails we can still take military action "in time" to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons? "Just in time" nonproliferation assumes a level of intelligence certainty concerning Iran's nuclear program that recent history should manifestly caution us against.

Every day that goes by allows Iran to increase the threat it poses, and the viability of the military option steadily declines over time.

Bolton argues that as Iran's nuclear operates proceed unhindered, the country will develop stockpiles of uranium hexafluoride that it can enrich, even if some of its facilities are attacked.  Also, Bolton points out:

Although we cannot know for sure, every indication is that Iran is dispersing its nuclear facilities to unknown locations, "hardening" against air strikes the ones we already know about, and preparing more deeply buried facilities in known locations for future operations. That means that the prospects for success against, say, the enrichment facilities at Natanz are being reduced.

And...

Iran is clearly increasing its defensive capabilities by purchasing Russian S-300 antiaircraft systems (also known as the SA-20) directly or through Belarus. In late July, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and his spokesman contradicted Israeli contentions that the new antiaircraft systems would be operational this year. Assuming the Pentagon is correct, its own assessment on timing simply enhances the argument for Israel striking sooner rather than later.

And...

Iran continues to increase the offensive capabilities of surrogates like Syria and Hezbollah, both of which now have missile capabilities that can reach across Israel, as well as threaten U.S. troops and other U.S. friends and allies in the region. It may well be Syria and Hezbollah that retaliate initially after an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, thus making further strikes against Iran more problematic, at least in the short run.

Finally...

Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.

They won't consider it.  It's too convenient just to talk, and hope for the best, and not let facts get in the way.

Do you sense a grim situation down the road?

August 5, 2006.      Permalink          

EARLY AFTERNOON POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 1:42 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

There's now a bit of a spread - five points in fact - between the Rasmussen and Gallup daily trackers.  Rasmussen, as yesterday, reports McCain one point up over Obama, but Gallup reports Obama four points up over McCain.

As we've noted, Gallup polls registered voters, Ras polls likely voters. 

We'll simply have to watch the trends in these and other polls.  The trackers have generally been closer together in recent weeks.

August 5,  2008.      Permalink          

THIRD MORNING POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 8:37 a.m. ET

THE LEFT FLANK

Ralph Peters is a terrific writer on military affairs, and isn't in the tank for anyone.  He's apparently had it with the precincts of the far left, and here he takes a broad swing at that crowd, and hits his target.  I'm glad someone finally said it:

FTER a lecture to the Marine Memorial Association last week, a reporter thrust a mike toward me and asked if I thought I should be tried for war crimes for my columns in The Post supporting our military.

The reporter - who avoided revealing what outlet he was with - thought he was being wonderfully clever, but what fascinated me about the silly encounter (it was in San Francisco, after all) was how unintentionally revealing it was about the shameless hypocrisy of the left.

Think about it: For expressing my views to readers like you on these pages, hardcore leftists believe I should be put on trial as a war criminal.

It tells you all you need to know about the extreme left's view of the First Amendment: Free speech is great, as long as it's their free speech (or extreme pornography). But dissenting views must be censored. The more effective the opponent, the more important it is to shut him down.

Yup.  I've seen the same thing.  Many times.

The left pretends that campuses should enjoy freedom of speech, yet activist students shout down, harass and even attack speakers whose views they dislike. That's brownshirt behavior, folks - as surely as show trials are Stalinist.

Seen that too.

The stunning hypocrisy of the march-in-step left was brought home to me again on Sunday while I waited in a green room for a C-Span spot.

The show preceding mine featured a young woman, Mahvish Rukhsana Khan, who's published a book about the poor, innocent, kitten-loving prisoners at Guantanamo. Her interview climaxed with the claim that Guantanamo is the equivalent of the Holocaust.

I guarantee you that no one from MoveOn or DailyKos questioned that outrageous comparison. (Nor did the patsy interviewer challenge it.)

Question it?  The left questions nothing that supports its positions.  It will even side with 10th-century Islamic fascists if it strengthens anti-Americanism.

At the moment, the American left evokes our Communists in 1939, who contorted themselves to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Stalin and Hitler. As this column recently pointed out, Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home! disappeared from the political scene the instant Obama called for sending those troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of back to Fort Hood.

For the hardcore left, the party line always trumps conscience. MoveOn isn't new - it's just Pravda with poor punctuation.

Ah, a bit tough.  But fundamentally correct.  And yet, I heard MoveOn described on an NPR radio show as "center-left."  Are you laughing?

The travesty is that the left is so poorly reported by the mainstream media.  To refer to a Marxist as a Marxist is to risk being called "a McCarthyite."  Hard-core leftists are often referred to as "anti-war activists," or "human rights campaigners," or even "progressive."  It was so during the Vietnam War, when openly pro-Communist rallies were called "anti-war demonstrations." 

We are a weaker country because of the far left, and those in the media who will cover for their ranks.

August 5, 2008.      Permalink            

SECOND MORNING POST:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 7:44 a.m. ET

TENSION WITH IRAN

As Eli Lake in The New York Sun reports, tensions with Iran are building again.  With all the propagandistic yapping from some circles that the Iranian government is really rational and calculating, I'm not sure it's wise to accept that at face value.  Some other "rational and calculating" governments, like those in Berlin and Tokyo in the late thirties, produced a bit of bother, as you'll recall.  The Sun:

Two days after a diplomatic deadline passed for Iran to end the reprocessing and enrichment of uranium, the chief of the country's Revolutionary Guard force is threatening to close down one of the world's most critical oil shipping passageways, the Strait of Hormuz.

A picture released by Irna news agency shows military ships and helicopters of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards during maneuvers in April 2006 off Larak Island in the Gulf Sea.

The Revolutionary Guard commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari, spoke to Iranian reporters after testing a new antiship missile that he said could sink "enemy ships" at a range of more than 200 miles. He said shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would be easy.

"Enemies know that we are easily able to block the Strait of Hormuz for an unlimited period," Iran's official news service, the Islamic Republic News Agency, quoted Major General Jafari as saying.

Western intelligence doubts the claims about the new missile, but there are legitimate grounds for real concern.

Nonetheless, the test and statements are a pointed rebuff to the Bush administration, which recently dispatched the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, William Burns, to Geneva to convey to the Iranians an offer to freeze diplomatic sanctions in exchange for the suspension of enrichment and reprocessing.

Le Monde published Monday what it claimed were minutes of Mr. Burns's meeting with the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. According to the minutes, Mr. Burns was deferential. He said: "I am happy to transmit a simple message. The United States is serious in their support of their offering of cooperation and a way forward. We are serious in the search for a diplomatic solution. The relations between our two countries have been based on a profound mistrust for 30 years. I hope that my presence today is a step in a good direction and that you seize the opportunity."

They did not seize the opportunity, and they're not going to.  Every signal coming from the West tells them that we will not use military force.  Why should they do anything?  They can absorb the economic damage caused by sanctions, especially with their growing oil wealth.  President Bush is a lame duck, made more lame by the paralyzing presence of Rice at State and Gates at Defense, two represenatives of the Bush 41 way of thinking:  Never solve a problem that can go unsolved. 

Meanwhile in Washington, a spokesman for the State Department said that all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany had agreed to begin drawing up new diplomatic penalties for Iran in light of the lapsed negotiations deadline of August 2. "In the absence of a clear, positive response from Iran, we have no choice but to pursue other measures against Iran," a spokesman for the State Department, Gonzo Gallegos, said.

Iranian press reports, however, indicated that the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, spoke by phone with Mr. Jalili yesterday, suggesting that more negotiations would continue.

Ah yes, negotiations will continue.  Negotiations will always continue, especially when the Europeans are running things.  Meanwhile, the centrifuges spin in Iran, the Israelis are told the U.S. will not back them in an attack, Barack Obama promises more talks, and we expect results.

The only result we're likely to get is a mushroom cloud over some test site.  Then, you watch:  The very same diplomats who are "negotiating" today in Europe will say that we face "new circumstances" calling for..."renewed negotiating efforts."

And I have no doubt that we'll see what we've already seen with Saudi Arabia - Iran financing professorships and even whole departments in Western universities, giving them the opportunity to influence the thinking of elites the way they currently influence international politics.

August 5, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY:  AUGUST 5,  2008

Posted at 7:10 a.m. ET

THE WARRIOR BARACK

In a perceptive column, Mort Kondracke today asks a question that, for some reason, hasn't been asked publicly:  Does the Democratic Party want Barack Obama to be a war president?

Strange question, you might say.  But when you look at some of Obama's rhetoric, careless or not, it has to be asked. Kondracke:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) clearly did not get a "bump" -- or a "dump" -- from his overseas trip. What his supporters may not have focused on is that he means to be, like George Bush, another American wartime president.

"This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan," he said in his Berlin speech. "No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan.

"But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done."

Did the left-wing base of the Dem Party notice that, or were they just looking at the masses gathered below in Divine Worship.

If the going gets rough in Afghanistan, will a party that wanted to pull out of the Iraq "quagmire" at the first sign of trouble really back President Obama as he wages war, or will Democrats fracture as they did over the Vietnam War 40 years ago?

A Gallup Poll last week showed signs of potential trouble. While Americans generally believe -- by a margin of 68 percent to 28 percent -- that it was correct for the U.S. to send troops to Afghanistan, a full 41 percent of Democrats believe it was a mistake.

Only 55 percent of Democrats believe it was a correct move, as compared with 88 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Independents.

Welcome to the real world, Senator Obama.  If you actually go at it big time in Afghanistan, you may find more Republicans supporting you than Democrats.  And the Dems will secretly whisper that you've been co-opted by the industrial-military complex.

It's not clear how Obama means to "rout" the terrorists. Certainly, the 10,000 U.S. troops he wants to add to NATO's current total of 62,000 (including 32,000 U.S.) will not be enough to control Afghanistan, which even 120,000 Soviet troops could not do.

Moreover, Obama's determination to continue Bush's "war" on terror conflicts with liberal Democratic notions -- backed up by a RAND study this week -- that the anti-terror effort should be conducted less on a military basis and more with intelligence "soft power" and police work.

Winning in Afghanistan will require destroying the poppy and hashish crops that earn the Taliban about $8 billion a year. The Bush administration has been reluctant to use aggressive eradication methods that have succeeded in Colombia for fear of offending Afghans.

And...

Obama left on his trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe with the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing that he was trailing Sen. John McCain as a potential commander in chief by 53 percent to 25 percent and as a "strong leader" by 42 percent to 31 percent.

His dazzling performances did nothing to increase his slim lead in popular vote polls. Mistake-free though his tour was -- and remarkable, as a presidential-style logistical exercise pulled off without White House infrastructure -- he got no "bounce."

Finally...

In fact, the rap on his trip became that he was too "grandiose," especially in comparing himself to Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, previous stars in Berlin, and declaring he was in Berlin as "a citizen of the world."

Less remarked on was the huge foreign policy agenda Obama put forth -- including controlling "loose nukes," expanding foreign aid, stopping genocide in Darfur and halting global warming. Democrats generally cheer those aims, but will they support a big new war?

The answer is probably no, and I really wonder if a President Obama will pursue most of those items vigorously.  The Democratic Party base yearns to return to the sixties, the time of its youth.  Its only interest in foreign policy is to rein in the United States and maybe do more damage to the people of Africa with crazy environmental programs, like banning DDT.

We face tests of national will.  Who wins those tests will determine a good part of the nation's immediate future.

August 5, 2008.      Permalink