EVENING POST:  JULY 26,  2008

Posted at 10:08 p.m. ET

BOLTON ON OBAMA

One thing about our former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton - he pulls no punches and likes to throw many.  It cost him his ambassadorship, but I think he's a national treasure.  You know that John Bolton will defend the United States.  One wonders about some of the other foreign-policy "experts."

Bolton performs intellectual surgery on Barack Obama.  The patient has problems:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA said in an interview the day after his Berlin speech that it "allowed me to send a message to the American people that the judgments I have made and the judgments I will make are ones that are going to result in them being safer."

If that is what the senator thought he was doing, he still has a lot to learn about both foreign policy and the views of the American people. Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

Nothing like a little splash of ice water in the face.  More:

First, urging greater U.S.-European cooperation, Obama said, "The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together." Having earlier proclaimed himself "a fellow citizen of the world" with his German hosts, Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced.

Well, Obama was in school.  He was dating a lot.  You know, sometimes you just don't notice.  Oh, you mean there's more?

The successes Obama refers to in his speech -- the defeat of Nazism, the Berlin airlift and the collapse of communism -- were all gained by strong alliances defeating determined opponents of freedom, not by "one-worldism." Although the senator was trying to distinguish himself from perceptions of Bush administration policy within the Atlantic Alliance, he was in fact sketching out a post-alliance policy, perhaps one that would unfold in global organizations such as the United Nations. This is far-reaching indeed.

And...

Second, Obama used the Berlin Wall metaphor to describe his foreign policy priorities as president: "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

This is so upsetting.  Why does he have to be so, so...truthful about our Barack?   Doesn't Bolton know that he's the one we've been waiting for? 

The best we can hope for is that Obama's rhetoric was simply that, pandering to the audience before him, as politicians so often do. We shall see if this rhetoric follows him back to America, either because he continues to use it or because Sen. John McCain asks voters if this is really what they want from their next president.

Come on, McCain, get into the ring with this Obama guy.  You know fifty times more about foreign policy than he does.  Make it show.

July 26, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 26,  2008

Posted at 3:30 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

I've had better days watching the polls.  There's now no question but that Barack Obama has received a bump, of perhaps four points or so, as a result of his foreign tour and the accompanying applause of both the press and some adolescent Europeans.  I wonder if he, like the other rock stars, writes his own songs. 

Rasmussen has Obama up six.  Gallup has him up seven.  A week ago both polls showed much smaller leads, and Rasmussen reported a tie on several days. 

That doesn't mean, of course, that the bump will last.  But it does seem to dispel the notion of a backlash against Obama by Americans who might resent his foreign excursion or the attention lavished on him by people who have not always stood at this country's side.

Gallup reports:

Notably, Obama's current seven-point lead over McCain ties his widest since the start of Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the general election in early March, and was achieved only once previously. He led McCain by seven points immediately after Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign for the Democratic nomination in early June. However, that proved to be a short-lived bounce, with Obama holding a six- to seven-point lead for only three days before it dropped back to two to three points.

While Obama may have thus far received a modest bounce from the massive publicity surrounding this week's trip, his ability to sustain or build on that -- as opposed to having it dissipate along with news coverage of the trip -- could hinge on how the major U.S. media outlets and conservative vs. liberal commentators portray his performance abroad in the coming days.

The conventions are approaching.  Obama will probably put on a great show.  He usually does, as showmanship is his strength.  McCain?  He's not exactly a showman, but his life story and strength of character may yet see him through, if he can only project his best traits.  I also hope he makes an imaginative choice for vice president, but I fear that he'll go conventional.

This is a tough fight.  If McCain can put on a vigorous fall campaign, along the lines of Harry Truman's, and if he can learn to speak over the heads of journalists, he has a shot.  If not, welcome to four years of changing the world, pushing back the seas, and correcting any rotational flaws in the Earth. 

July 26, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND MORNING POST:  JULY 26,  2008

Posted at 8:59 a.m. ET

HYPOCRISY

I've always had, as they say, a "thing" about the Olympics.  I love the events, but generally deplore the people who organize the affair.  To say that the International Olympic Committee has a checkered past is to say that John Dillinger had some legal problems.  The IOC, particularly during the Nazi period, covered itself with shame.

Now it renews that shame.  It seems that the IOC is suddenly enforcing rules on the new government of Iraq that it never found time to enforce when Saddam Hussein was in power.  I guess they're just a bit more efficient these days.  Maybe they upgraded their computers, or something. 

The Washington Post nails it, in another example of its excellent editorial writing:

WHEN IRAQ'S Olympic team paraded at the 2000 Summer Games in Sydney, the head of the country's Olympic Committee was Uday Hussein, the notoriously sadistic son of dictator Saddam Hussein. Uday made Baghdad's Olympic facilities the headquarters for his own epic feats of rape, torture and murder; among those he brutalized were athletes on the national team who failed to live up to his expectations. His may have been the foulest abuse of a national Olympic movement in history. Yet the International Olympic Committee found a way to live with Uday, just as it has tolerated the manipulations of sports teams by totalitarian governments around the world -- including this year's host, China.

That is excellent editorial writing.  All good editorials begin with a statement of fact.  A fine editorial isn't just a statement of opinion - it's a fact-based argument.  More:

Funny, then, that the IOC would have decided to ban Iraq's seven-member Olympic team from this year's Games -- a punishment that in recent decades has been imposed only on apartheid South Africa and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The reason cited by the Lausanne-based agency: "political interference in the Olympic movement," an offense that the IOC did not detect in Iraq when Saddam Hussein's son was in charge.

Maybe they were understaffed back then.  You know the problems.

By the book, the IOC's international bureaucrats may be within their rights...

But the IOC isn't always so strict. In 2000, it allowed athletes from East Timor to participate in the Games even though the newly independent country didn't yet have an Olympic committee. Even now the IOC could come to terms with Iraq or at least allow its athletes to compete in Beijing as individuals. That it has chosen to crack down on the democratically elected government that replaced the Hussein regime -- while welcoming to Beijing Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan, all of which it must consider innocent of any "political interference" in sport -- says a good deal more about the values of the international Olympic bureaucracy than it does about Iraq.

Wonderfully stated.  The IOC has always been a strange organization.  A disturbing number of its past executives managed, somehow, to involve themselves with fascism.  For many years it was led by Avery Brundage, an "American" this country could easily have done without, the man whose construction business won the bid to build Hitler's embassy in Washington.  Only the inconvenience of World War II prevented construction of the magnificent edifice.

The IOC needs reform.  It has always needed reform.  I suspect the current action against Iraq is a reflection of the anti-Americanism of parts of the "international community."  You may recall that when the terminally sleazy Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, one member of the selection committee said it was a "kick in the shins" to the Bush administration.  This seems to be another kick.

The story should be given greater exposure.  Don't hold your breath.

July 26,  2008.      Permalink          

SATURDAY: JULY 26,  2008

Posted at 8:23 a.m. ET

CLAIMS?

We must always be cautious about believing claims, especially when they come from rogue regimes.  At the same time, underestimating potential enemies is generally not good for a nation's health.

The president of Iran is making claims. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, machines used to enrich uranium, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

"Islamic Iran today possesses 6,000 centrifuges," Fars quoted Ahmadinejad as telling university professors in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

The new figure is double the 3,000 centrifuges Iran had previously said it was operating in its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

In April, Ahmadinejad said Iran had begun installing 6,000 centrifuges at Natanz. His reported comments Saturday provided the first public assertion that Iran has reached that goal.

And...

A report by the UN's nuclear monitoring agency that was delivered to the Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, though a senior UN official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was pretty much plausible.

Uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment. Iran says it is interested in enrichment only for its nuclear power program.

Right.  There is a desperate need in Iran for nuclear power to recharge iPods and run hair dryers.  You have no idea the suffering there will be without this nuclear gift.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

There will be people in our own intelligence establishment who will downplay this report, the better to advance their own foreign-policy ideas.  I think the claims should be taken quite seriously especially as the UN - even the UN - suggests that they're plausible.  I would not trust our future to the Iranian mullahs.  Let's not forget that two nuclear devices smuggled into New York and Washington respectively could devastate the United States - decapitate our government, wreck our financial center, and kill in a few seconds more Americans than have been killed in all our wars combined. 

Hate to be so sober on a Saturday morning.  But this is not child's play.

July 26,  2008.      Permalink