THURSDAY,  AUGUST 14,  2008

THOSE IRON-WILLED EUROPEANS

Posted at 7:15 p.m. ET

The usual suspects are out in force, blaming everyone but the Russians for the Georgia crisis.  Some even manage to blame President Bush.  There appears, in some of the articles I've read, an old-time college-campus yearning to support Moscow, no matter what Moscow does.  Ah, maybe they'll get Marxism right.  And, of course, there are those who argue that we're in no moral position to criticize Russia because of "Iraq," which has become a catch-all term for all the sins of civilized man.  Never mind that our goal in Iraq is to create a democracy, whereas Russia's goal is to destroy one.  Hey, who are we to impose our vocabulary?

In Western Europe, the Western Europeans are doing what they do best, which is not much of anything.  Gerard Baker of The Times of London, cited quite often in these pages, comments on Europe's "not-their-finest-hour" response to the invasion of Georgia:

To some, China's muscular domination of the Olympic medal table is a powerful allegory of the shifting balance of global power. A far better and more literal testimony to the collapse of the West may be seen in the distinctly weak-kneed response to Russian aggression in Georgia by what is still amusingly called the transatlantic alliance.

Once again, the Europeans, and their friends in the pusillanimous wing of the US Left, have demonstrated that, when it come to those postmodern Olympian sports of synchronized self-loathing, team hand-wringing and lightweight posturing, they know how to sweep gold, silver and bronze.

Wonderfully stated.

There's a routine now whenever some unspeakable act of aggression is visited upon us or our allies by murderous fanatics or authoritarian regimes. While the enemy takes a victory lap, we compete in a shameful medley relay of apologetics, defeatism and surrender.

The initial reaction is almost always self-blame and an expression of sympathetic explanation for the aggressor's actions...

...It ought not to be necessary to point out the differences between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Mr Saakashvili's Georgia, but for those blinded by moral relativism, here goes - Georgia did not invade its neighbours or use chemical weapons on their people. Georgia did not torture and murder hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. Georgia did not defy international demands for a decade and ignore 18 UN Security Council resolutions to come clean about its weapons programmes.

Pay no attention to that argument.  Pay no attention.  It's all capitalist propaganda.  It's Halliburton.  You know that Georgia was created by Halliburton, don't you?

If shifting moral blame won't relieve us of our responsibilities then surely defeatism will. Whoever is right or wrong, the critics say, we can't do anything about it. In the past week, the familiar parade of clichés has been rolled out to explain why it is all hopeless. The Russian bear, pumped up by all that oil wealth, is reasserting power in its own backyard. The US and Europe, their energy sapped by endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, can only stand by and watch.

There's something odd about listening to European governments speak about the futility of diplomacy.

I'm not so sure it's that odd.  This country invested decades of time and trillions of dollars to prevent Western Europe from succumbing to its internal Communist parties and their friends in universities and in the press.  But that crowd is still there, and still influential.

We could take diplomatic and economic action against Russia.  But Baker points out that the Europeans might get upset:

The Europeans don't much like the idea of any of this. So this week they demonstrated the same sort of resolve that they showed in the Balkans in the early 1990s, when they stood by as genocide unfolded on their own continent.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, in his capacity as head pro tempore of the EU, came back from a trip to Moscow and Tbilisi, waving a piece of paper and acclaiming peace in our time.

But...

That disastrous piece of European diplomacy finally seems to have stirred the US into tougher action. Goaded by John McCain, who has been brilliantly resolute in his measure of Russian intentions over the past few years, the Bush Administration at last dropped its credulous embrace of Mr Putin and upped the ante with direct military assistance to Georgia and threats of tougher diplomatic action.

Finally...

It was a great Frenchman, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who founded the modern Olympic movement on the famous principle that “the important thing is not winning but taking part."

The EU today seems to have adapted that slogan to fit its own desired global role - the important thing is taking part and not winning.

I'm afraid that attitude has also taken hold among America's "intellectuals."  Indeed, they oppose winning.  They oppose American victory.  They oppose American exceptionalism.  Sometimes I think they have utter contempt for the very idea of freedom, especially if that freedom protects people with whom they disagree.

There have been some tough words from President Bush and Secretary Rice in the last few days, but let's see if they're followed by any action that will punish the Russians for their actions, and force them to reverse course.

I realize that the Georgian situation is complex.  But the Soviet military action is unacceptable and frightening.  Appeasement now will have its effects years down the line.  Senator McCain clearly understands this.  I get the feeling that Senator Obama has other things to think about.

August 14, 2008.      Permalink          

OH, COME ON

Posted at 1:37 p.m. ET

Oh, I just love this:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” Senator Barack Obama said in a statement.

The decision was announced on Thursday afternoon in a joint statement from the senators.

You can just hear the violins playing.  Oh the kindness.  Oh the warmth.  And here is Ms. Hillary, the sincerity so evident in every phrase:

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.

The New York Times concludes the story this way:

So how will Mrs. Clinton, who is a superdelegate herself, vote? Associates say she will throw her lot behind Mr. Obama and ask her supporters to follow suit. To see if it unfolds as the Obama campaign hopes – free of acrimony – tune in on Wednesday, Aug. 27.

You may not have to wait until then.  See the story, TRACKERS, just below.  Obama had better get his v.p. choice announced soon because, if he tanks in the polls, the Clinton crowd will get very big ideas.

August 14, 2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:25 p.m. ET

Both trackers are out.  We note, as we always do, that a poll is a snapshot in time, and one day's results are significant only as part of a trend. 

With that in mind, Rasmussen has Obama up only one, a decline of a point since yesterday.

Now Gallup has come in, showing Obama up only three, a decline of three points since yesterday.

Part of a trend?  There is no way of knowing, but that is a pretty sharp one-day decline in the Gallup survey.  Further, Obama generally polls better than he delivers.

If, and it's a big "if," this becomes a trend that continues to the Democratic convention, and Obama runs essentially even with McCain, there could be some attempt at a revolt among the Clintonistas, with a demand that Hillary be put on the ticket.

Watch the numbers carefully.  They have a psychological impact, and in politics that counts.

August 14, 2008.      Permalink          

ON THE AIR

Posted at 8:43 a.m. ET

To the strains of Jerry Goldsmith's theme from "Patton," the Mike Scully Show went on the air yesterday morning, and I was privileged to be the guest.  My thanks to readers who e-mailed saying they'd listened in, and liked what they'd heard. 

I happen to love radio.  Always have.  I think radio, where you can concentrate on the substance and not the pictures, often has far more depth than television.

Mike and I talked about my time in the CIA, and, in my other life, my tenure at The Tonight Show.  We were able to spend a few minutes recalling the great Jane Wyman, Ronald Reagan's first wife and an Oscar-winning actress.  She gave me one of the most memorable interviews I've ever conducted.  She was an intelligent, articulate woman with a musical voice, someone who could speak in full sentences and paragraphs, and could do so without notes. 

We took some calls from listeners.  Those of you who tuned in knew that one man, the token liberal, warned that we needed "truth" in American life, and recalled President Eisenhower's warning about "the industrial-military complex."  I tried to explain to the gentleman that this line has been taken entirely out of context, and that it showed why it's so important to read whole texts, and not selected lines here and there.

President Eisenhower did refer to the dangers of an industrial-military complex in his farewell address to the nation in January of 1960, on the occasion of his leaving the presidency.  But the warning came at the end of a section in which he talked of the need for that complex.  In the past, he'd said, America had time to mobilize in a crisis.  But modern weapons had erased that luxury.  Our arms had to be strong and ready, requiring a large industrial and military structure.  That structure was needed, but carried with it certain risks.  That's what the president actually said.  But you'd never know it from those who take one line out of context and spin it the way they wish.

I enjoyed the show.  If I'm invited to do any others, I'll alert readers.

August 14, 2008.       Permalink          

REMEMBERING

Posted at 8:04 a.m. ET

Today marks the 63rd anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II.  A conflict that originally started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 ended in a few days after the United States used two atomic bombs and the Soviet Union entered the war.

In light of events of the last week, let me emphasize the point about the Soviet Union's entry into the fight against Japan, although at the last minute.  We tend to forget the enormous impact that Moscow has had on world events over the last century, an impact often expressed recklessly, as with the Soviet-sponsored invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950, or last week's incursion into Georgia.

Shallow fools like John Kerry belittled the power of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.  Kerry once announced that he knew the Soviets posed no great threat to the West because, when he'd visited, he'd found that half the lights at the Moscow airport were out.  He apparently was not invited to conduct a similar inspection of the lighting system aboard Soviet missile submarines.  Others belittled the Soviet economy, not recalling that a Soviet Union with an even weaker economy made mincemeat of the Nazi armies on the eastern front during World War II.  Let us not forget that 80-90 percent of the German casualties in that conflict were suffered at the hands of the Red Army.

I make these points because there is, once again, a tendency to underestimate the Russians and the mischief they can cause.  We already are facing enormous challenges from Islamic fundamentalism.  Americans, rather easily exhausted in this Age of Easy, seem tired of even that battle.  Now a new Russia is arising, drunk on oil revenues and a historic ability to intimidate its neighbors.  If the conventional predictions hold, we are about to elect as president a man from Illinois whose first reaction to last week's Russian assault was a statement breathtaking in its moral equivalence.  Hey, they all have to be careful over there.

The next four years will be very bumpy.  Russia seems determined to add ruts in the road.  We might consider that prospect as we decide which man we will entrust with the national security of the United States.

August 14, 2008.       Permalink          

GOODWIN

Posted at 6:45 a.m. ET

Michael Goodwin, a terrific political observer writing in The New York Daily News, assesses the semi-trainwreck in the Democratic Party as their convention approaches rapidly.  Festivities begin a week from Monday.

Fresh from a nearly six-week layoff, Hillary and her team are picking up where they left off in June. Her pledges of unity and wholehearted acceptance of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's nominee seem to be, well, halfhearted.

One day she's on a YouTube video talking about the need for a "catharsis" at the Democratic convention, which sounds suspiciously like a demand to have her name put in nomination for a roll call. Then an interview surfaces of Bubba refusing to say Obama is ready to be President. And close aide Howard Wolfson rips the scab off the primary wounds by saying Hillary would have won if the media had exposed John Edwards' affair earlier.

This is definitely not the vacation Obama had in mind.

No, but he did stabilize a bit in some polls.  When he's out of sight, the public can't realize how bad he is.

It's tempting to dismiss all this talk of a catharsis and what might have been by saying she should get over it, that it's an election, not group therapy. But there is no use blaming the Clintons. They can't help themselves.

There's also another reason not to blame them. It's Obama's fault that he isn't able to shut the door on their endless soap opera.

He could never deliver the knockout punch during the primaries and limped across the finish line barely ahead of Hillary in delegates. Even more shocking is that he hasn't benefited from her absence and ostensible support. He didn't get a lasting bounce after she conceded June 7 and has actually slipped recently in head-to-head matchups against John McCain.

Note the Pew poll, which had Obama up eight in June, five in July, and three now.

His running mate choice will almost surely suffer by comparison to her. Whomever he picks will bring far less pizzazz to the ticket than she would. That's not an argument for picking her, it's just a fact Obama has to deal with.

Then there's the convention, where Chelsea Clinton will introduce her mother on Tuesday night in what is sure to be a prime-time, rafter-shaking moment. With Bubba set to speak on Wednesday, the torch will be passed to the winning team only later that night when the veep nominee speaks. He, and it will likely be Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, will not have easy acts to follow.

Well, there's a prediction, and it could be right.  On the other hand, Obama could "dramatically" leave the v.p. choice up to the convention, meaning Hillary would be it, and he'd "enthusiastically" accept the choice. 

Now that would be drama.

August 14, 2008.      Permalink