Why should Obama apologize for implying that a Las Vegas vacation is about gambling?

Las Vegas Mayor calls President Obama a "slow learner"

At a "townhall" meeting about the federal budget in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday. President Obama said this:

"This isn't how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. And it's time your government did the same."

Based on the offended outcries from Sen. Harry Reid and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, among other Nevada notables, you'd think he said that you'll catch a horrible disease by going to Las Vegas! The Mayor was especially nasty, saying that Obama "has a real psychological hangup about the entertainment capital of the world," that Obama doesn't understand what Vegas officials are trying to do with their "economy." And he called the President a "slow learner" (see video above). (By the way, isn't "slow learner" the same thing as "retarded"?)

I'm disappointed that the President has already issued an apology of sorts, saying in a letter to Reid that he didn't really mean anything "negative" and that "there is no better place to have fun than Vegas, one of our country's great destinations."

I understand that "the entertainment capital of the world" is having a tougher time than many other cities in the current recession -- but isn't that the price to be paid for building your "economy" on legalized gambling and whoring?

As Obama implied correctly, when times are hard and money is tight, you don't "blow a bunch of cash in Vegas." If you do, you're either a gambling addict or just plain stupid.

Really, what does anyone go to Vegas for? It has no ocean or lakes or beach of any kind. You can't boat or sail or fish or swim (except in casino-hotel pools) in the summer or ski in the winter. It's cultural attractions are, at best, kitsch. Embarrassingly, ccording to the city's own tourism website, you can take in "area" attractions a mere 300 miles away, take the kids to see the Pinball Hall of Fame, or visit such "free attractions" as this botanical splendor at the Bellagio (preferably on your way to the hotel's 116,000-square-foot casino).

Sure, Vegas has a lively night life, with name celebs performing in vast rooms at the big hotels. But take away the gambling, and could anything else in Vegas -- even the legal prostitution -- survive?

Of course not. The place is a gamblers' paradise, and it's no surprise that its gambling business was started by gangsters and built into a big business by more gangsters.

It's all very legal and legitimate, now, of course, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Obama should stick to his guns -- and tell Mayor Goodman to go fish.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Obama calls in outside help...but from David Plouffe?

That old gang of mine: Obama with (l-r) Robert Gibbs, David Plouffe, David Axelrod

In the aftermath of the disastrous (for Democrats) victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts and with the President's standing with voters declining while opposition to his policies is on the rise, the White House has finally sent out a call for outside help. Well, sort of outside help.

According to the Washington Post, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe -- generally regarded as a political and organizational whiz -- "will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House."

I was expecting something like this, because when a President is in as much trouble as Obama is, the usual course is to bring in some fresh blood or fire a few people or both. When he faced similar problems after the 1994 mid-terms elections swept the GOP into power on Capitol Hill, Bill Clinton turned to an old advisor who had not been part of his 1992 campaign or early administration, Dick Morris. Despite fierce backbiting from other top Clinton aides, Morris helped the President to shape a new governmental approach and political strategy that was decisive in Clinton's strong comeback and victory in 1996.

But Plouffe is no Morris. Part of the same tight-knit crew in Chicago that ran Obama's 2008 campaign, along with key political aides David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, Plouffe may not have the independence or the inclination to rock any boats -- although all signs point to Obama's White House needing some serious boat rocking and maybe one or two capsizes.

Indeed, Plouffe has an op-ed in today's Washington Post in which he advises that the Administration and Congress's response to the popular unpopularity of their programs should be to put heads down and barrel through as if nothing had happened in Massachusetts -- or Virginia or New Jersey.

Of course, Plouffe may be putting up a smokescreen, affirming publicly that the plans forged by his colleagues have been right all along, while intending to advise the President to change course. Something tells me this won't happen. Plouffe's new role looks an awful lot like a way to gin up some new sales strategies for stuff that no one is buying.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Another month gone by and the "terminally ill" Lockerbie Bomber is still not dead. What's going on?

Mass killer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi supposedly dying in a Libyan hospital last August

On December 9, I asked the question here why the infamous Lockerbie Bomber wasn't dead yet. He had been released in August by Scottish authorities ostensibly on "compassionate grounds" after serving only 8 1/2 years of his life sentence for killing 270 people, mostly Americans, on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Al-Megrahi was said to be afflicted with "terminal prostate cancer" and given only three months to live. He received a hero's welcome on his return to Libya. Soon after, the above photo of him in the hospital was released. Then, he dropped from sight, and by all accounts is still very much alive.

That was four months and 19 days ago. So what's going on?

Daily Beast editor Lloyd Grove tried to find out and got a run-around from British and Scottish officials. Grove was able to establish that, unbelievably, the British-Scottish responsibility for monitoring Megrahi's release is in the hands of the Community Health and Care Partnership of the East Renfrewshire Council -- sort of like your local town health department. Ah, but the Council guy told Grove that he couldn't comment on Megrahi's health since "the privacy of the client's medical details must be respected." Megrahi is a "client," no less, not even a parolee. much less a convicted terrorist!

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. From the outset in August, it was clear that the British government had sold out the Lockerbie victims to smooth the way for a huge BP oil deal with Libya and had persuaded the Scots to release him “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom."

Megrahi's three months are up long ago, and he's still not dead. The families of his victims deserve at least an explanation, but no one is talking. President Obama must demand an accounting from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And the British press and people would be doing everyone a favor if they raised hell themselves.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Pantybomber aftermath: Obama says "system failed," calls it "intolerable" but stands by his national security team!

President Obama says someone "failed to connect the dots." But who?

Speaking yesterday at the White House after meeting for the first time since the Christmas terrorist attack with his whole national security team, President Obama minced no words about failure of the U.S. Government to head off this mortal threat.

President Obama said Tuesday that the government had sufficient information to uncover the terror plot to bring down a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day, but that intelligence officials had “failed to connect those dots.”

“This was not a failure to collect intelligence,” Mr. Obama said after meeting with his national security team for nearly two hours. “It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”

Obama said he wants action -- now:

I want specific recommendations for corrective actions to fix what went wrong,” said Mr. Obama, who was speaking in the Grand Foyer of the White House. “I want those reforms implemented immediately, so that this doesn’t happen again and so we can prevent future attacks.”

The "failure to integrate" charge seemed to point in one particular direction:

Mr. Obama’s stark assessment that the government failed to properly analyze and integrate intelligence served as a sharp rebuke of the country’s intelligence agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the organization set up after the Sept. 11 attacks to ensure that the government had a central clearinghouse for spotting, assessing and thwarting terrorist threats.

Yet, it appears that no one's head is on the chopping block:

But Mr. Obama insisted that he was not interested in getting into a blame game. White House officials said the president was standing by his top national security advisers, including those whose agencies failed to communicate with one another.

Pointing no fingers himself, Obama told the 20-odd senior national security officials that "he would not 'tolerate' finger-pointing" among themselves.

But here's the serious trouble with that. Mr. President: if everyone is to blame for a major failure to protect the American people, then no one is to blame. Saying you'll hold people accountable is pretty much meaningless, if you don't actually hold anyone accountable!

The "system" that "failed" wasn't set up yesterday and needs some time to work out the bugs. The National Counterterrorism Center was set up in 2004 and placed under the new Director of National Intelligence when the latter office was established in early 2005. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center was created in 2003. And the Department of Homeland Security was established by Congress in 2002. All the other involved agencies have been around much longer.

So if someone "screwed up," in the President's words, who was it? If Obama, Congress and the rest of us don't know, how can we be sure the problem or problems ever get fixed?

Was it the National Counterterrorism Center, which was set up pursuant to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation precisely to connect the dots? Was it the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center which maintains the U.S. Government's consolidated terrorist watch lists? Was it CIA officers in Nigeria or at Langley? Was it the State Department? Did DHS drop the ball? NSA had some intercepts, we're told, but did they share everything? And what about the Brits' report that their intelligence officials shared important information tying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to extremists a year ago? Last but not least, has the White House been on top of potential problems and fixes for them in the year since Obama took office?

No one should let any of this drop unless and until we see the actual people who screwed up directly or indirectly by virtue of their management or policy-making responsibilities pay a price.
What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Janet Napolitano MUST be fired!

Unbelievably, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano went on CNN and two other Sunday shows two days after a terrorist tried to detonate a high explosive on a Detroit-bound airliner and said, "The system worked." As if that was not stupid enough, she followed that up by saying, "There is no suggestion that he [the terrorist] was improperly screened."

We all know this is absurd nonsense. The entire multi-billion-dollar "system" of airline security over which Napolitano presides has one and only one purpose: to prevent terrorists and criminals from attacking airplanes. Thus, the "system" failed totally and abysmally. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was prevented from bringing the airliner down and sending 288 innocent people to their deaths by the incomplete detonation of his bomb and the swift action of one passenger.

We all know that the "system" of gathering and using intelligence on possible terrorists failed because information from Abdulmutallab's own father that his son might be a danger to the United States did not result in the cancellation of his open visa. We know that Britain recently refused to renew his visa to enter the U.K. and apparently, that "dot" was not connected to the other "dots." Most frighteningly, Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket to Detroit with cash and had no luggage! Yet, he was neither questioned closely nor frisked, revealing a huge gaping hole in the screening process that Napolitano says "worked."

Napolitano has now backtracked on her Sunday morning comments, acknowledging that something about the "system" did not "work" (a mealy-mouthed retreat in which she claims her comments were taken out of context).

But it's too late for that. Napolitano has shown herself to be an unserious nitwit. Napolitano must resign. If she doesn't, President Obama must fire her. The safety of tens of millions of air travellers must not be left in the hands of someone so dense and foolish.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Howard Dean plunges dagger into the heart of ObamaCare

Howard Dean says he'll support Obama's reelection, but "not vigorously"

As of yesterday, it was not at all clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had managed to corral the votes of moderate Democrats needed to reach the magic number 60. Senator Ben Nelson was still holding out for clear language barring the use of any federal funds for abortions. Joe Lieberman was being counted as a yes vote in some accounts, but all Lieberman said was that if the final bill had no form of public option or Medicare expansion, he was "getting to that position to where I can say...that I'm ready to vote for health care reform." Not exactly a ringing endorsement, especially considering that Reid has yet to unveil his final bill. Blanche Lincoln's view remained elusive and several other moderates, such as Virginia's Jim Webb, have been conspicuously silent all along.

Then, suddenly, the left lashed out against the bill, with a particularly damaging attack by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Dean has many fish to fry in this debate. He's doubtless been licking his wounds since being passed over by President Obama for Secretary of Health and Human Services. His hostility to Obama was unconcealed in an interview with "Morning Joe" Scarborough (see video above) in which he said he would be supporting Obama for reelection, but "not vigorously." Since that's more or less how much of the left wing of the Democratic Party feels about Obama right now, Dean is making a bold move to claim leadership on the left.

Whatever his motives, in a Washington Post op-ed today, Dean made a powerful case against the Senate bill from his perspective:

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

I'd call this is a clear attempt to plunge a dagger into the heart of any compromise Senate bill that might meet the objections of moderates like Nelson, Lieberman and Lincoln. Of course, Dean doesn't have a vote in the Senate, but his fellow Vermonter, independent Bernie Sanders, does, and Sanders says he's not going to support any bill that strips out the public option and Medicare expansion.

This left-wing rebellion goes beyond Vermont. Half the influential left blogosphere has bolted, with DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas writing that it's 'time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate." Liberal MSNBC hosts are piling on as well. Addressing Obama, Ed Schultz said on his program, "Right now, Mr. President, your base thinks you’re nothing but a sellout — a corporate sellout, out that. … The only people who like this current bill right now, Mr. President, is the insurance industry — they get a bunch of new customers.” In a windy commentary, Keith Olberman underscored Dean's arguments, called the compromise Senate bill a "cheesy counterfeit of reform," and declared that he personally would risk jail rather than accede to the individual mandate, if the bill becomes law. Meanwhile, the powerful Service Employees International Union, a major Obama backer and go-to player on health care reform, appeared to be hedging its support and applying pressure on Reid to move the bill back to the left.

If Reid does that, he loses Lieberman and Nelson, probably Lincoln and maybe other moderates. At the least, Obama's Christmas deadline is now kaput. Come January, all bets are off.

What's your take? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Ben Nelson has affirmed that he won't settle for any compromise on abortion language but will filibuster anything less than the House-passed Stupak Amendment. He also says he has other issues with the bill and that a deadline "isn't helpful." It's looking impossible for Reid to satisfy both Nemson and his rebelling left wing.

Is Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dead yet? If not, why not?

al-Megrahi (left) gets hero's welcome on return to Libya with dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif

On August 20, 2009, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, better known as the Lockerbie Bomber was freed by Scottish authorities on "compassionate grounds" after serving only 8 1/2 years of his life sentence for the terrorist murders of 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Supposedly, al-Megrahi had "terminal prostate cancer" and had less than three months to live.

That was three months and 20 days ago, so the question should be asked, is he dead yet? And if not, why not?

On November 19, when al-Megrahi's three months were up, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisting understandably that the convicted terrorist be sent back to prison in Scotland if still alive. “The bottom line is Megrahi should have never been released in the first place, but it would be even more outrageous if he were to be able to live a long and free life after his release," Schumer said. At that time, it was reported that while al-Megrahi had checked into a local hospital in Tripoli initially on his return to Libya, he had been released and was living at his family’s villa.

On October 21, hopes for al-Megrahi's quick demise were raised briefly when Sky News reported that he had died, but his lawyer promptly denied it:

It's absolutely untrue," said al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly, according to Reuters. "He's definitely not dead."

Kelly would not comment further on his client's health, other than to say: "He is alive and breathing," Reuters reported.

Lest there be any doubt about the mass murderer's still breathing air, a Libyan official told Reuters, "Megrahi's condition is stable. He's alive."

That's the last reasonably authoritative reference to al-Megrahi's health that this blogger can find anywhere. If the bomber is alive today, he's well past his promised expiration date and the Obama Administration should renew Senator Schumer's demand to send him back to prison.

The business about "compassionate grounds" had a stink about it from the start. Needless to say, the relatives of al-Megrahi's victims saw little reason to waste compassion someone who had served a measly eight years for killing 270 people. And the British press soon found out that a huge BP oil deal with Libya played at least a significant role in the decision by the U.K. and Scottish governments to release him “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom."

Indeed, it would seem that the question must be raised and answered, does al-Megrahi have "terminal cancer" at all or was the whole thing a sham?

What do you think? Post a comment.

Welcome Dan Riehl and Hot Air readers

Obama's Afghan decision took Presidential courage in the face of feckless left-wing and right-wing opposition

President Obama addresses the Cadet Corps and the nation at West Point

President Obama has made the right decision to commit 30,000 more Americans troops to the fight in Afghanistan -- on top of the 20,000 additional troops he approved early this year -- to "finish the job" of defeating al Qaeda and its essential ally, Mullah Omar's Taliban. Obama said last year as a candidate that this is the "necessary war" and that he would finish it. He said it again in the spring. He said it again last night at West Point. With the two troop increases, Obama is more than doubling the number of U.S. combat brigades engaged in this fight -- from three to eight. He is also ramping up a more aggressive U.S. strategy to deal with the al Qaeda-Taliban sanctuaries inside the Pakistani tribal areas, where he has already greatly stepped up the tempo of CIA-led drone missile attacks. It's hard to see what else Obama needs to do to demonstrate that he takes his Presidential responsibility for national security seriously.

It was also a courageous decision in light of the certain attacks it would draw -- and has quickly drawn -- from both the deeply unserious pacifistic left wing of the his own party and the comically aggressive right wing of the GOP.

Interestingly, a good deal of the barbs from both sides revolved around Obama's setting out a flexible 18-month time frame for the Afghan surge. Senate Democratic dove, Russ Feingold, found this wanting because it was not a strict deadline for withdrawal: ”I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there." Meanwhile, Senate Republican hawk, John McCain, undermined his standing as a national security guru by immediately leading a GOP attack on Obama over the time frame without even a feeble effort at demonstrating bipartisan unity behind a President making a hard choice to send young men and women to war: “Then it makes no sense for him to announce the date,” Mr. McCain retorted. In short, he said, “that gives the wrong impression to our friends, it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies.”

Beyond Capitol Hill, the attacks were far more intense -- and almost stupefyingly simplistic and irresponsible. MoveOn.org is already pushing a petition to Congress to set a binding deadline for a U.S. withdrawal. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" right after Obama's speech, radical activist Michael Moore called the U.S. presence in Afghanistan "insane" and claimed, in effect, that "there is no al Qaeda in Afghanistan." On the right, columnist Ralph Peters would win if there was a prize for the most hysterical nonsense for writing that Obama's 18-month time frame was a " presidential declaration of surrender." It's a mystery to me how or why Peters, a former Army officer, thinks that adding the firepower of five Army and Marine combat brigades since last spring won't have any effect on the Taliban, while Obama's setting a target date to begin shifting security responsibility to the Afghans will lead to a U.S. defeat.

Obama's formulation is straightforward, clear and compelling: This is a fight we did not ask for but must win for our own safety and security. It has gone on for a long time because we did not apply the necessary resources to it. We're going to do that now. The Afghans and others must do their parts as well. It won't take forever, and as President, I won't let it.

I find it hard to take issue with any of that. Americans of every political persuasion should back the President. There will be more than enough time to find fault if he fails.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

President Obama makes the right decision -- to finish the job in Afghanistan

OBL: Answer to the unserious question about Afghan war: "Why are we there?"

About an hour from this writing, President Obama will speak at West Point to explain his decision to send approximately 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over the next nine months or so, with the first contingent to arrive by Christmas. His decision is already coming under intense fire from left-wing critics of U.S. military action who don't appear concerned about the devastating attacks on Americans launched by al Qaeda from their refuge in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan --except as a way to criticize the Bush Administration. At the same time, right-wing bloggers and talking heads are still damning Obama for taking "too long" to decide and for seemingly choosing a troop strength somewhat below that requested by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Both of these lines of attack on Obama are at best foolish and at worst destructive. People on the left and the right have forgotten -- or choose to ignore -- the compelling reason for this war: Mullah Omar's Taliban government of Afghanistan not only gave refuge to and protected Osama bin Laden, so that he could plan and launch the attacks of 9/11. The Taliban were closely allied with al Qaeda, drew financial and logistical support from al Qaeda for their own war against fellow Afghans, and fought side by side with the literally thousands of al Qaeda's Arab, Pakistani, Chechen, Uzbek and other non-Afghan terrorists trained in bin Laden's Afghan camps. An American withdrawal from Afghanistan -- or a defeat in the field -- would result swiftly in Mullah Omar's return, the re-establishment of his "Emirate" government, and the reinstallation of of "Sheikh" bin Laden as an honored guest and crucial supporter of a renewed Taliban. Anyone who doesn't understand that this will happen as surely as the sun comes up in the morning is a fool -- or worse.

At the same time, the U.S. has no interest in conquering or occupying Afghanistan or in imposing on Afghans a style of government not of their own choosing. This is not World War II, there will be no "unconditional surrender," and the right amount of force must be used with extreme care. Too many on the right fail miserably to appreciate this.

We'll see soon enough if the new U.S. troop strength is sufficient and whether Gen. McChrystal's strategy -- as modified by the Administration's senior national security team and adopted by Obama -- needs further refinement. (In all military actions, planning is essential -- but so is flexibility in quickly changing plans to meet the actual conditions of the battlefield.) But right now, the President should have the support of everyone who wants to see this war end as quickly as possible with the job of defeating al Qaeda -- completely and permanently -- finished.

What's your take? Post a comment.

Chuck Schumer in 2001: Try al Qaeda bigs at military tribunals, not "Federal court...in Lower Manhattan"

Most Americans think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 terrorists should be tried before the Military Commissions created by Congress for that very purpose. Like me, they can't understand why President Obama and Attorney General Holder have made the irresponsible and potentially dangerous decision to try them in U.S. court in New York City instead.

Chuck Schumer, New York's senior Senator and a powerful member of leadership of the Senate Democrats, has emerged as a major defender of this incomprehensible decision.

Come to find out that Schumer sang a different tune right after the 9/11 attacks, when so many of his constituents were vaporized and the hole where the World Trade Center used to be was still smoking. Then, he said this:

There are also those prisoners of war who we have captured and will capture in Afghanistan and other countries who will receive a trial of some sort. It is clear we need to try those suspects in a forum that achieves two primary goals—two goals, I might add, that may not conflict. First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form. In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.

Smart words, Chuck. Yes, it's ludicrous. And it's equally ludicrous that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's third in command and operations chief who conceived, planned and directed the 9/11 attacks (among many others) should be tried in a Federal court in Foley Square in Lower Manhattan just steps from city hall and a few blocks from the Trade Center.

Where did that tough-minded Chuck Schumer go, and who is this foolish guy who now waves away all of those compelling arguments?

(Hat tip: Legal Insurrection)

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

White House busted! Obama bow to Japanese emperor is NOT just "protocol"

Not unless the White House is making up its own "protocol" as Obama cruises through his latest road trip.


For the past 24 hours, a lot of eyebrows have been raised around the world about this photo of the President of the United States bowing low -- very low -- before the Emperor of Japan, one Mr. Akihito, and his lovely wife, the Empress Michiko. Akihito is the son of the guy known as Hirohito who led Japan during its risky escapade in attacking China, the United States and most of the Pacific world -- and kept on leading it long after.

Knocked for a loop by the near-90-degree bend-over, the White House claimed that it was just a matter of "protocol" -- routine stuff, you know, just to be polite.

Having been raised in a household where we all thought the President of the United States doesn't bow down to anyone, I wondered enough to try to find out if I might have missed when this "protocol" arrived. Here are a couple of samples of what I found.


Here is President Ronald Reagan and the then-aging Emperor Hirohito greeting each other -- just like any other two guys on equal footing might -- with a hearty handshake (although Hirohito does look as if he's throwing in a little instinctive bow).


(Hat tip for photo: Bostonmaggie)

Lest you think that some of this protocol stuff might have changed for U.S. Presidents since RR left the White House -- or that Hirohito's son, Akihito, has laid down some new requirements of obeisance in exchange for expanding Japan's imports from America (fat chance!), here is Akihito and his Empress just hanging out last July in Hawaii with a couple of folks who rank way, way down the diplomatic food chain from Divine Emperors, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and Admiral Timothy J. Keating, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command. Looks like hearty handshakes all around.

Omigosh, I hope the Governor and the Admiral didn't embarrass us with some protocol faux pas!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more photos here, and HotAirPundit has some here.

UPDATE 2: ABC's Jake Tapper has a source who tells him that a bit of a bow was OK but not so deep or jarring as Obama's bow. Says Nixon got it right.

Democratic Senators oppose Obama's decision to try 9/11 terrorists in U.S. court

Sen. Jim Webb (D.-Va.) calls Obama's decision "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive"

National security-minded Democrats are beginning to speak out against President Obama's irresponsible decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other al Qaeda 9/11 terrorists in federal court in New York City.

Virginia's Democratic Senator Jim Webb had this to say:

Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

(Hat tip: Below the Beltway)

And Connecticut's independent Democrat, Joe Lieberman, called Obama's move "inconceivable:"

“The terrorists who planned, participated in and aided the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are war criminals, not common criminals," Lieberman said in a statement. "The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States.”

[snip]

"I share the views of more than 140 family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks who recently wrote to the Senate urging that the individuals charged with responsibility for those attacks should be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States," Lieberman said. "It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims’ families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America.”

Not so "inconceivable to Obama and Attorney General Holder, it seems. But when something goes wrong with this move to appease left wing critics of the war on terror, Obama and Holder won't be able to say they had no choice. Congress created Military Commissions for this purpose, and Obama will continue to rely on those Commissions -- just not to try and punish the most important of the al Qaeda thugs we've captured.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Obama's irresponsible and dangerous decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators in U.S. court in New York City

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (R) and co-defendants Walid Bin Attash (C) and Ramzi Bin al Shibh at a Gitmo hearing last year

Nothing good can come of the decision by President Obama and Attorney General Holder to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his co-conspirators in federal court in Manhattan a few blocks from the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be. The Administration has chosen an irresponsible and dangerous path -- and an unnecessary one.

All five of these guys were set to go on trial last year before the Military Commissions established by Congress for that purpose. On December 8, 2008, the five informed the military judge that they wished to withdraw all motions made on their behalf by their lawyers and plead guilty, even though they faced a possible death penalty. They told the judge that they had made this decision "without being under any kind of pressure, threat, intimidation's or promise from any party.

If the military tribunals had been allowed to continue their proceedings, KSM and his cohorts likely would already have been tried, convicted and sentenced. However, immediately on taking office, President Obama announced that he would close Guantanamo within a year and ordered that the proceedings of the Military Commissions be suspended as his team considered what to do with the Gitmo detainees. Thus, the impending trial of the five 9/11 plotters was put on the back burner.

If today's announcement of trials in federal court was necessary because the Administration had ruled out the use of the military tribunals for whatever reason, it might make some sense. But Obama actually reinstated those tribunals in May with some added due process protections for detainees. Even more inexplicable, even as the KSM five are being hailed into court in New York's Foley Square, four other al Qaeda operatives now held at Gitmo -- including Abd-al-Rahim al Nashiri, accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen -- will be tried before a Military Commission.

Why all nine of these characters cannot be tried before Military Commissions, when four of them can be, is beyond me. There is a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today by supporters of the Obama-Holder move to the effect that it shows the world that we have absolute confidence in our courts and system of justice. If so, why try al-Nashiri and three others before military tribunals? On top of that, the Obama Administration has made clear that it can and will hold some captured terrorists indefinitely without any trial, if they deem them too dangerous to release. So pardon me if I decline to see today's announcement as some sort of triumph of "justice."

While there is nothing on the plus side for this decision, there are plenty of things on the down side:

First, KSM and the others, assured of a big platform at the epicenter of the worldwide media, will now plead not guilty and use the trial to put the United States government on trial. They will do their best to push out daily propaganda to millions of Muslims around the world. It will be one huge show trial -- a show for the defendants!

Second, our nation's best and brightest lefty lawyers will be falling all over themselves to get a piece of this defense. Dozens of lawyers will demand disclosure of virtually everything about the actions of U.S. intelligence and the actions of allied and friendly countries in pursuing and capturing this al Qaeda crew. While the court will probably curb their appetite, they will win some disclosures, perhaps a lot more than is safe, depending on the judge.

Third, New York City, already the most desired (and hit) target of al Qaeda and its sympathizers, will have a big new reason to worry about being hit again. Only those who believe foolishly that al Qaeda has been vanquished never to be heard from again, can dismiss the obvious attraction of striking New York in the middle of KSM's trial. They may not be able to hijack airliners anymore, but, as last week's Fort Hood massacre ought to show everyone, there are lots of ways that deadly terror attacks can happen without elaborate schemes, 20-man crews and major resources.

Finally, although it's not likely, the government might not win convictions for one or more of these defendants. It only takes one juror to hang a jury, and those smart defense lawyers will do everything they can to assemble a jury that includes at least a few members they think will be open to a defense that turns the tables on the government. What then? There is no chance that any Administration will ever let any of these guys walk free. So it will all be back to square one.

It's utterly irresponsible and dangerous to do this. It's a choice that President Obama may turn out to regret.

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.

Daily leaks turning Obama's Afghanistan strategy review into an embarassing farce

President Obama meets with his badly leaking "war council"

Another day, another set of embarrassing -- and potentially dangerous -- leaks from President Obama's ongoing review of U.S. Afghanistan war strategy.

Today's unbelievable "leak" -- actually more of torrent of presumably sensitive national security information -- features the appearance two and a half months into this process of apparent objections to any increase in U.S. troops from the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and former top U.S. military commander there, Gen. Karl Eikenberry. This story, served up by "three [unnamed] senior American officials," also includes a characterization of what questions Obama asked at a meeting of his top national security team and a supposed insight into the President's thinking:

Mr. Obama asked General Eikenberry about his concerns during the meeting on Wednesday, officials said, and raised questions about each of the four military options and how they might be tinkered with or changed. A central focus of Mr. Obama’s questions, officials said, was how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw.

“He wants to know where the off-ramps are,” one official said.

The president pushed for revisions in the options to clarify how — and when — American troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government. He raised questions, officials said, about the exit strategy for American troops and sought to make clear that the commitment by the United States would not be open-ended.

No one can or should second guess the President on how he makes a fateful decision on war policy or what tough questions he puts to his advisers. He is also entitled to take as much time as he deems necessary, within reason, to reach a conclusion. And Obama would be foolish if he did not evaluate policy choices with an eye to the length of the U.S. commitment and the outlook for bringing it to a successful conclusion under various scenarios.

But the details of this process don't belong in the newspapers! In particular, his looking for the "off-ramps" isn't something that ought to be discussed in public, lest it encourage the Taliban, discourage NATO, Afghan and Pakistani allies, move friendly Afghans to sidle up to the Taliban, and affect the morale of American fighting forces.

This is really elementary. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates understands this, and it's why he's getting really angry about the leaks:

“I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on in this process,’’ Mr. Gates told reporters en route to a Wisconsin factory that is churning out thousands of armored trucks manufactured specifically for the rough terrain of Afghanistan.

“I think a lot of different places are leaking,” he said. “I’m confident that the Department of Defense is one of them.To have details or options that are being considered out there in the middle of the president’s deliberative process I think does not serve the country and it does not serve our military.’’

Mr. Gates then added a threat.

“And frankly if I found out with high confidence anybody who was leaking in the Department of Defense, who that was, that would probably be a career-ender,’’ he said.

Let's hope his message is taken seriously by the other people around that big table in the White House Situation Room.

The trouble is that Gates' authority does not extend to most of them. Only the President can tell everyone to shut up, as he should without further delay. This drawn-out process -- accompanied by leaks that tell us one day that Obama is close to a decision to send 30,000 troops and tell us the next that he's a long way from a decision and may not send any more troops -- has become a farce. It gives the impression of an Administration wracked by conflict and a lack of resolution and seriousness. It's embarrassing to the nation, the Administration and the President himself. Even worse, it could be dangerous, since whatever Obama final decides to do, American strategy will be subject to endless questioning based on these weeks of news reports, regardless of whether any of them are accurate.

President Obama must impose discipline on his own house -- now, without further delay.

What do you think" Post a comment.

Here's why Obama and the Democrats need to govern from the center

If they want to govern successfully, President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress must govern from the center and not be constantly distracted by the objections and demands of their party's left wing.

This is true for the simplest of reasons: not enough Americans are liberals to form a strong enough base of support for a sharp turn to the left.

The results of Gallup's latest survey of how Americans identify themselves ideologically, shows this breakdown:

Conservative 40%

Moderate 36%

Liberal 20%

In other words, three quarters of all Americans are not liberals. Couple this with Gallup's map of ideological identification by state (which I described in an earlier post here), and the reason for the powerful pull in American politics towards the center is clear.

This doesn't mean that the current Democratic agenda is unpopular. Far from it. Gallup's respondents may think the words liberal, moderate and conservative mean many different things, after all. A good many of the self-described moderates undoubtedly lean Democratic and are inclined to follow Democratic leaders. What's more, on some issues -- boosting the economy, regulating Wall Street, reforming health care, for example -- ordinary voters may be a lot more open to a range of solutions than their self-identifations imply.

Still, the gravitational pull of the center cannot be escaped. Pushing too far to the left -- or the right -- will inevitably result in the voters' slapping you down. I don't think there is the slightest doubt that if the Obama Administration consistently pursues the course demanded by the House Progressive Caucus, MoveOn.org, the liberal commentariat and the left-wing blogosphere, the 2010 elections will produce a huge backlash against Democrats. There is no clever political strategy that can forestall such a development. It will happen because of the nature of the electorate.

Fortunately, so far, centrist Democrats -- in particular, 15 or so moderate Democratic Senators -- have held back a foolishly leftward lurch. But the Democratic Party has been known before to shoot itself in the foot. Much depends on Obama's good sense and smart leadership. We'll see.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

White House Nixonian assault on Fox News is wrong, wrong, wrong

Congressman: Republicans and Fox News are "the enemy of America"

When the President of the United States allows or encourages the White House staff to launch an all-out attack on a purveyor of news and opinion he doesn't like, declaring Fox "not a news organization" and following up by trying to ban Fox from the White House TV press pool, it is not just politically foolish or dumb, although it is both those things. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Indeed, it's positively Nixonian. In some ways, it worse than anything Nixon and Agnew did in their public pre-Watergate campaign to smear the "liberal media."

For decades, whenever I've heard people on the right complain about what they perceived to be a liberal slant at The New York Times, the Washington Post or CNN, my attitude was always, well, let them get their own newspaper or all-news TV channel. The Sulzberger family, Katherine Graham and Ted Turner were entitled to push whatever politics suited them, just as William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce had done in earlier years. That's the essence of First Amendment rights (the three broadcast networks, with their public franchises, occupy different ground). If they showed bias, people would notice, and those who didn't like it would stop relying on them. And that's exactly what happened.

That's why the Washington Times exists today. It's why The Wall Street Journal is now competing directly with the NYT and WaPo on a wide range of non-business news. And its exactly why Roger Ailes started Fox News.

The White House makes the argument that Fox is different from MSNBC or CNN. All these networks have opinion shows, but Fox supposedly allows bias into its regular news programming, while the others, it's implied, don't. Even if that were true, so what? The counter-argument is that MSNBC, in particular, is just as biased in what stories it chooses to cover or not cover and how it presents them. So when a Republican becomes President again, will it be OK for the White House to ban MSNBC?

Of course not. Anyway, news bias is in the eyes and ears of the consuming public. News organizations have always been politically biased. That's why so many newspapers were originally named "Democrat" or "Republican." That's why the Hearst organization's support was considered crucial for several generations of national politicians. It's why Henry Luce's Time magazine was a powerful force behind the Old Guard GOP. It's why liberals were beside themselves when the old Dorothy Schiff-owned New York Post was bought by Rupert Murdoch. The three broadcast networks have to be held to a different standard because they're using our airwaves. But there are scores of perfectly good cable channels going unused, so anyone who doesn't like the news seen on CNN or MSNBC can start their own. Oh, they did!

It is, of course, shockingly thin-skinned of Obama to fret so much about Fox News that he sends his people out to delegitimize Fox as a GOP propaganda outfit. But it's worse than that. The Executive is enormously powerful. The clear message has been sent to all the other media that they had better not "follow" Fox when it breaks stories, even solid stories, that the White House doesn't like, lest they wind up persona non grata with the President, too. As seen in the video above, members of Congress are taking their cues from the President to ramp up the bitter partisan rhetoric which Obama promised he would eschew. And naturally, the left blogosphere has exploded with applause.

Fortunately, the rest of the mainstream media has not been easily herded into line with the White House. All the other TV news networks refused to conduct White House-organized interviews if Fox was to be excluded from the pool. ABC's White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs pointedly where he got off declaring "one of our sister organizations" not a legitimate news organization. Influential liberal commentators have weighed in critically too. And some moderate Democrats in Congress are already voicing concerns about the White House attacks on Fox and others coming back to bite them.

The press does not have to be immaculately "objective" -- as if that were ever possible. And it certainly does not need to be deferential or even impeccably polite to the people in power. We're all better served by a press that makes noise, upsets apple carts, disturbs the serenity of those we've entrusted with governmental authority. Rather than try to delegitimize such folks as "enemies," Obama should get used to it. That's not to say that Obama needs to go on Sean Hannity's show and subject himself to hostile and silly questioning. And every White House has a right to play favorites among the press. But Obama should not be so insecure as to worry about members of his Administration getting a few tough questions from Chris Wallace, Major Garrett or Shepard Smith.

What do you think? Post a comment.

UPDATE (Oct. 27): Fox News ratings have soured since the White House attack, up nearly 10% across the board. "As for competition against the cable also rans, Fox News is sweeping the top 11 cable news slots in the 25-54-year old demographic...and the top 13 slots in all demos."

Polls: Public opposes health care reform 50 to 44

Click on image for details

According to Pollster.com, not much has changed since the end of August. Obama and the Congressional Democrats have their work cut out for them.

Got an opinion? Post a comment.

British Army chief warns of "terrifying defeat" in Afghanistan, backs McChrystal; Brits ready to send more troops

General Sir David Richards, Chief of the British General Staff

America's most important ally would seem to be publicly pressing President Obama to back his own general in the field. From The Telegraph:

In an unprecedented intervention, the chief of the general staff described the conflict as "this generation's war" and added that failure by Nato would have an "intoxicating effect" on militant Islam.

[snip]

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

The general's intervention comes at a crucial time, with the US General in charge of operations in Afghanistan calling for more troops to be sent to the country to fight the Taliban.

[snip]

Sir David has issued his unprecedented warning because he believed the public and even members of the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" which would result if the war was lost.

He said: "Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and Nato, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

[snip]

The Army chief declared that Britain was ready to send more troops to Afghanistan if called on to do so in the wake of the revised strategy which has been drawn up by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato troops in southern Afghanistan.

And for good measure, Richards went out of his way to criticize what seems to be shaping up as the Joe Biden plan:

The general criticised plans put forward by some members of President Obama's administration – notably those of Vice-president Joe Biden, who is believed to support the view that Nato should reduce troop number in Afghanistan and concentrate on counter-terrorist operations using special forces. Sir David said this was a strategy which would not work.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Who's the mope in the White House who persuaded Obama to make a personal pitch for Chicago Olympics?

CNN anchor is dumbfounded at Chicago's first-round elimination

Sure, in a perfect world, Chicago's losing its Olympic bid is no big deal, and the President would be congratulated for giving it the old college try.

But politics is politics, and when the President of the United States very publicly -- and in the face of criticism -- puts the prestige of his office behind something -- anything -- losing has a cost, at least in political terms. As Politico's Ben Smith put it within minutes of the news:

There's a reason the president is rarely dispatched to a summit whose outcome is uncertain.

And Chicago's elimination in the first round of voting has to raise questions about whether the White House was getting accurate information about how competitive this was from Chicago's Olympics organizers.

The White House staked, and lost, some prestige on that one.

Exactly. So who in the White House called it so very wrong and urged Obama to change his mind publicly and make the 11th hour trip to Copenhagen? When the trip was announced, just about everyone assumed that it must be because Chicago was going to win, since no one would be foolish enough to put the Presidency behind a loss at a time when there really are so many other bigger fish to fry. After all, no one would have faulted Obama had he stuck with his original plan to send the First Lady.

It had to be one or more of the Obama Chicago crew: Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, political advisor David Axelrod, or family friend and consiglieri Valerie Jarrett -- or maybe all three. OK, maybe they got misleading intelligence from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley or were hoodwinked by the IOC. Still, it's their job to figure these things out. And it's just politics, not rocket science.

My money is on Jarrett who has the deepest ties to Chicago's elite and whose White House portfolio of "public engagement and intergovernmental affairs" means that liaison with Chicago's leadership on matters like this is her prime responsibility.

Obama's campaign team last year was widely lauded for its smarts and effectiveness, but their record in the White House isn't up to that standard. Look for changes as the second year of Obama's term draws near.

Got an opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- I should add that I thought a Chicago Olympics would have been a good thing for Chicago, the USA and the Olympics. Why the IOC chose Rio, which is widely believed to be a cesspool of flith, crime and degradation, is utterly beyond me.

UPDATE 2: Unbelievable. "A sense of stunned bewilderment suffused Air Force One and the White House. Only after the defeat did many advisers ask questions about the byzantine politics of the Olympic committee. Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser and a Chicago booster who persuaded him to make the trip while at the United Nations last week, had repeatedly compared the contest to the Iowa caucuses.

"But officials said the administration did not independently verify Chicago’s chances, relying instead on the Chicago 2016 committee assertions that the city had enough support to finish in the top two. Mr. Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ms. Jarrett worked the phones in recent weeks without coming away with a sense of how behind Chicago really was."

UPDATE 3: Larry Sabato asks the obvious question, "Will anyone’s head roll for causing Obama this acute embarrassment on the international stage?"

Final act in health care reform drama: the seniors will decide

The health care "deciders" -- America's old folks

In a post four months ago, I wrote this:

Here is my prediction: seniors are not paying much attention to this whole issue now, because they have health insurance. In all likelihood, they also don't think Obama and a Democratic Congress will monkey with their coverage. When they start to pay attention, watch out on Capitol Hill, because these folks vote. I mean, they ALL vote.

Then, in a post one month ago, I added this:

Sure enough, polls show that seniors are the major group that is least supportive of the various health care reform schemes, and the steady erosion of Obama's public approval ratings is being driven in significant part by seniors.

And that was when seniors were just skeptical but -- what with all the smoke and mirrors surrounding multiple health care bills and Obama's serial speeches -- not yet really sure that Medicare benefits were going to be cut. Now the cat is out of the bag:

Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

That's what the CBO chief had to say about just the $100 billion in cuts proposed for the popular Medicare Advantage plans. There is as much as another $400 billion in Medicate and Medicaid cuts being proposed (depending on which of the bills, which keep changing).

Folks, there is no way in hell that this Congress is going to pass a bill that relies on such huge cuts in Medicare. Only the safest Democrats could risk voting for something that will, as surely as the sun rises in the morning, rouse seniors to vote against them. The only thing worse for your reelection prospects is to cut Social Security benefits.

Mark my words: any final bill will have to be radically changed -- somehow -- to eliminate the Medicare cuts or it won't pass.

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.