Dentifrice them and Flip Flop goes Clippity Clop!

Syria will stay close to Iran as long as Iran is winning. There is little the West can offer Iran to make them stop their nuclear quest. Therefore, Syria can remain an ally of Iran and still play both sides of the street, for now.

Our Allies are too weak and frightened to be of much use and we have little to offer rogue regimes that will entice them to bargain. Carter had a toothy smile and so does Obama. Perhaps Obama can dentifrice Iran into giving up their WMD.

Yes, Iraq leaders want us out of Iraq for political consumption but they fear our leaving peremptorily. Democrats need to paint GW's negotiations over leaving as evidence the administration finally agreed to a time line as Obama has been asserting. On the other hand, the administration, which generally does a lousy job of either clearly explaining their actions or are incapable of overcoming press and media bias, is doing what it always said it would.

We invaded Iraq not to occupy it but to free its people of Sadaam etc. When Iraqis could stand on their own and form a government which was capable of defending the nation we said we would draw down our military presence. The surge and strategy of getting out among the people, Gen.Petraeus devised, has worked and in concert with our training of the Iraqi army and the government's ability to exercise its new found assertiveness we are now in a position to discuss reducing force levels in keeping with improvements on the ground.

That all of this comes during an election raises some legitimate suspicion but it took GW about four years to get it right and he finally seems to have done so.

The timing of overtures to Iran also seems to be a bit suspicious as well. No doubt GW is playing to history in the waning months of his time in office knowing that he will not be attacking Iran and wants to avoid being criticized for not have exploited direct negotiations, - no matter what the State Department calls them.

Predictions are odious at best and mostly wrong when I undertake them, but I suspect Iran will develop nuclear capability, we will buy their soft pledge regarding their use with some kind of concessions and appearance of an accommodation so that everyone can claim some vestige of victory and the next administration and Israel will be left with the problem.

An Iraq, initially capable of defending itself, does thwart Iran's ambitions to a degree, serves to placate the Saudis, throws some oil on the recent troubled waters and allows GW to claim he has checkmated Iran because of what we accomplished in Iraq. Certainly an Iraq tilting towards the West, in the long scope of history, can serve as a beacon and point the way for those in the Middle East seeking something similar - an Islamic type democratic government where citizens vote and have personal rights and capitalistic opportunities.

Meanwhile the State Department has decided to meet to offset Obama's criticism, Iran has to be enthused about their position.(See 1 below.)

No matter what Obama displays on his Web Page, which he changes as often as if it were it a baby in diapers, he has never had the urge to surge! (See 2 and 2a below.)

The Dems wish they had oil pouring from their pores as they sweat the energy issue. (See 3 below.)

Flip and flop goes clippity clop: McCain goaded Obama into packing off to see for himself, so "Woodstock Two" begins as America's new rock star tours Europe and other countries. Obama feels compelled to visit foreign capitals and leaders to shore up his lack of experience. My course in college geography took longer than Obama will spend on this trip but the press and media will assure us he is a fast learner and Obama has a host of advisors who are there to help him get an A.

The Pope is in Australia mingling with their youth and our own youthful messiah is in Europe to learn what he already told us before he left he does not need to know. (See
4 below.)

Several years ago a federal bureaucrat used the word "niggardly." Within minutes he was being castigated (not castrated) by the press and media. When the abused bureaucrat pointed out the word's meaning (Webster: stingy) everyone backed away but not before the poor soul had been raked over the coals and admonished by the PC crowd.

Jesse and Whoopi have flagrantly used the "N" word but claim this is an indside matter and thus suggest tell the press and media it is none of their business.

Meanwhile, Obama asserted his candidacy would heal the nation's racial divide and in doing so cleverly placed criticism of himself, his wife and handlers off limits. The racial divide seems to be heading towards Canyon proportions. Never a day passes without some racial reference and discussion but it also seems a certain degree of hypocrisy is also in play. Blacks can criticize each other but white commentary must ,as Archie Bunker used to say to Edith, stifle!

We know little of Obama and if legitimate scrutiny is verbotten we could be electing a president who was able to fly under the radar screen, more or less, undetected. Quite an accomplishment on Obama's part and one which could be costly down the road in more ways than one. A truly failed Obama presidency, in my humble opinion, could set black relations back and that would be tragic for all.

McCain went before the NAACP and made a pitch for education betterment, charter schools, competition and vouchers. He was received respectfully but black leadership is incapable of the change Obama talks about because they are wedded to continued union control of education. Furthermore, Obama proposes the government must get more involved in our local school systems. If the current approach towards public education persists children will continue to be cheated of a solid education and the nation's ability to compete will suffer.

Education and the ability to reason logically is an important answer to racial divide. Without that foundation everything else being proposed is based on false hope.


For the moment, the Fed has stepped in and applied a lending tourniquet to Fannie and Freddie. The dollar strengthened and oil prices went down - all positive signs. The fact that we are " directly listening" to Iran also serves to calm the political troubled waters.

The jury is still out, however, because other bank collapses are probably in the offing, economic activity continues to evidence weakness and is spreading globally. Our housing market remains troubled as there is still quite a large overhang of unsold homes and mortgage defaults and repossessions are nowhere near an end.

Dick

1) Syria: Alliance with Iran won't suffer

Tehran briefs ally Damascus on status of international standoff over its contested nuclear program. Syrian FM vows indirect peace negotiations with Israel won't have impact on relations with Iran



Iran's foreign minister on Thursday briefed Syria's president on the international standoff over his country's nuclear program.


Peace deal can only be secured by returning Golan, but no Israeli PM will do that.

The meeting in Damascus signaled Syria's willingness to act on a request by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to try to help resolve the crisis by pushing Iran to cooperate with the international community.


Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, welcomed a Syrian role in trying to ease the tension, Syria's official SANA news agency reported. Speaking at a news conference, he added that Iran has always kept the Syrians informed of developments in the standoff with the United States and its European allies.


Sarkozy met with Syrian President Bashar Assad at a summit of European nations and other countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea last weekend in Paris. The French president asked Assad to step in and persuade Iran to offer proof that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.


Iran's assurances that it only wants nuclear technology for the production of energy have failed to quell suspicions that it is seeking a pathway to an atomic bomb.


Assad promised to relay the request from France to Tehran, but expressed doubts that his intervention would help, despite his country's close ties with Iran.


On Thursday, Assad stressed his view that ''dialogue and diplomacy are the only way to settle this issue,'' SANA reported.


The visiting Iranian foreign minister also met with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem, who said at a joint news conference that Iran's peaceful intention ''was confirmed to us by our brothers in Iran."



Al-Moallem was also asked by a reporter how his country's indirect peace negotiations with Israel might impact Syria's relations with Iran, whose president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.


Al-Moallem said the ''strategic alliance'' between Syria and Iran was strong and would not be shaken by the possibility of a peace treaty with Israel.


Mottaki expressed Iran's support for Syria's aims in the Turkish-mediated peace talks, namely the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war.


''We support the Syrian president's stand in recovering the occupied land,'' Mottaki said.

2) Obama, the Democrats, and the Surge: They were against it before it worked.
By Peter Wehner


This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party's presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.

On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. "In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge," Obama wrote, "our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda--greatly weakening its effectiveness." A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that "true success" and "victory in Iraq" were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.

The debate, then, is over, and the (landslide) verdict is in: The surge has been a tremendous success.

Obama, in typical fashion, is trying to use the success of the surge he opposed to justify his long-held commitment to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. But turning Iraq into a winning political issue won't be nearly as easy as Obama once thought. He has stepped into a trap of his own making.

The trap was set when Obama repeatedly insisted
that his superior "judgment" on Iraq is more important than experience in national security affairs. Judgment, according to Obama, is what qualifies him to be commander in chief. So what can we discern about Obama's judgment on the surge, easily the most important national security decision since the Iraq war began in March 2003?

To answer that question, we need to revisit what Obama said about the surge around the time it was announced. In October 2006--three months before the president's new strategy was unveiled--Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum--military and civilian, conservative and liberal--expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it's not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.

n July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

But Obama is not alone. Virtually the entire Democratic party, including every Democrat running for president, opposed the surge. For example, Senator Joseph Biden--considered by some pundits a foreign policy sage--declared, a few days before the surge was announced, "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

Hillary Clinton, on the night the surge was announced, said, "Based on the president's speech tonight, I cannot support his proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."

Senator John Kerry said this in February 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security;  .  .  .  it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."

Kerry's fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, declared that any troop increase would be "an immense new mistake."

Representative Dennis Kucinich, in this instance speaking for the mainstream of his party, put it this way: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."

In
April 2007, Senate majority leader Harry Reid declared the Iraq war "lost" and insisted, "This surge is not accomplishing anything."

Also in April, Senator Christopher Dodd said, "We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq--we need a surge of diplomacy and politics. Every knowledgeable person who has examined the Iraq situation for the past several years--Baker and Hamilton, senior military officials, junior officers--has drawn the same conclusion--there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong."

In September 2007, Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic majority whip, in anticipation of congressional testimony by General Petraeus, said, "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."

A month later Representative David Obey, asked if the surge strategy was working, offered the view that if violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents "are running out of people to kill."

In February of this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the success of the surge in Iraq. "Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?" Blitzer asked.

"There haven't been gains, Wolf," Pelosi replied. "The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

And as recently as last month, Governor Bill Richardson, when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge because it seemed to be having a positive impact, answered, "Absolutely not."

Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well and may yet prove to be among the most successful military plans in modern times.

2a) How Big Are Those Bundles? Barack Obama's failure to practice what he legislates

IT WASN'T so long ago -- last September, to be specific -- that a senator with a particular interest in campaign finance reform introduced a bill to provide important transparency in presidential campaigns. The measure, S. 2030, would require presidential campaigns to report the names of fundraisers who bring in "bundles" of individual contributions totaling $50,000 or more. The campaigns would have to report the occupations of the bundlers and the specific amounts they are credited with raising. This was a terrific idea. It's too bad that the bill's sponsor, Barack Obama, is failing to follow the rules he set out.

If you spend enough time hunting around on Mr. Obama's Web site, you might be able to unearth a list of his bundlers. (Hint: go to http://barackobama.com, click on "contact us," click on "answer center," click on category "fundraising," go to Answer 24.) You will see the names of those who bundle between $50,000 and $100,000 for Mr. Obama, the $100,000-to-$200,000 folks, and the $200,000-and-up crowd. Recently, prodded by a letter from campaign finance reform groups, and after the New York Times pointed out that the Obama campaign had not updated its bundler list for months, the Web site added a flotilla of names, along with each bundler's city and state. However, the Web site does not provide the bundlers' occupations or employers, although those should be readily available to the campaign from the bundlers' individual contributions.
ad_icon

John McCain, whose disclosure of bundlers had been sketchier than Mr. Obama's, told the campaign finance groups it would add employer and occupational information to his list of bundlers, promising monthly updates and saying he would include in the totals the amounts bundlers raised for the Republican National Committee to benefit the McCain campaign. The Obama campaign did not reply to the groups' letter.

The biggest flaw with both candidates' disclosures is that they stop being specific at what is a relatively low amount: $200,000 for Mr. Obama and $250,000 for Mr. McCain. The McCain campaign said it could not list a specific dollar figure "in the midst of the campaign because it is changed on an individual basis almost daily -- that is why we use broader categories." Even so, the categories could be far more specific: Campaigns know full well who has brought in $1 million or more, and who is a "mere" $200,000 bundler.

Mr. McCain's recent additions are welcome but insufficient. How far Mr. Obama's performance falls short can be measured by his own legislation.



3) What Dems Can't Say About Drilling
By David Harsanyi

One day Americans are moaning about the harmful impact of cheap oil and the next they're grousing about the harmful impact of expensive oil.

Which one is it?

As a disreputable sort, I freely confess to having a fondness for oil. Actually, I have a mild crush on all carbon-emitting fuels that feed our prosperity. But I'm especially fond of cheap oil. For many years, those who spread apocalyptic global-warming scenarios have warned me that a collective national sacrifice was needed to save the world.

One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.

Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?

The problem is that there is no feasible "alternative" fuel that can haul food from farms to cities, produce affordable electricity for your plasma TV and drive your kids to school. Not yet. It can happen, of course, but only (to pinch a word from enlightened grocery shoppers) organically.

The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer.

Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.

They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.

On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.

Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.

If oil giants won't dig, it surely can't hurt to allow leasing. Who knows? They may.

As for waiting? Well, rest assured an increase in domestic oil supply will involve a lot less waiting than the emergence of switchgrass as a viable alternative.

More importantly, oil is a traded commodity and, as everyone knows, the price can fluctuate for a number of reasons beyond supply.

Take President Bush's ceremonial lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling this week. By happenstance, I guess, within the next three days the price of oil per barrel had fallen more than $15 — the largest such drop in five years.

So why can't Americans look forward to more domestic oil? Well, because carbon is bad for you. Because countless Democrats believe that high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction.

For many, environmental concerns outweigh the economic well-being of citizens. For some, the migratory paths of caribou trump your selfish habit of heating and cooling your home.

No, drilling isn't "the answer." Yet, the potential positives from increasing domestic supply outweigh any concerns of the opposition. Certainly any they can talk about in public.

4) Obama Going Abroad With World Watching: Foreign Policy Credentials Are at Stake
By Dan Balz



Sen. Barack Obama will make his international debut as a Democratic presidential candidate in the coming days with a weeklong tour of the Middle East and Europe designed to deepen his foreign policy credentials, confront questions at home about his readiness to be commander in chief, and signal the possibility of a new era in U.S. relations with the rest of the world.


Obama's visit is among the most unusual ever undertaken by a presumptive White House nominee, planned with the attention to detail of a trip by a president and as heavily hyped abroad as at home. The senator from Illinois will meet with a succession of foreign leaders, make symbolically important visits and hold at least one large public event -- all with an eye to how the trip is playing in the United States.

But the tour is fraught with risks. The large media contingent that will follow Obama means that any misstep or misstatement will be magnified and potentially read as evidence of his inexperience, adding to doubts about him. If he successfully navigates his itinerary, however, the political payoffs could be significant enough to affect the outcome of his race against Republican Sen. John McCain this fall.

"The reward is potentially very big: that he substantially closes the very large and only large gap he has with John McCain and establishes a foreign policy credential," said Republican strategist Vin Weber.

But Weber said the trip could easily backfire if Obama does not carefully calibrate his message or if he creates the impression that he is running a premature victory lap. "He has thrown caution to the winds on this and gambled that the American people will like essentially what's going to look like a presidential trip to Europe," Weber said, adding: "America would like the president to be more popular in the world, but they don't want to elect the president of Europe."

Obama officials were at pains in a conference call yesterday to play down the political ramifications of the tour. "The trip is not a campaign trip," senior adviser Robert Gibbs told skeptical reporters. He and other advisers described the travel as a way for Obama to strengthen relationships and to exchange views on a variety of international issues.

McCain advisers scoff at the notion that this is not campaign-related, as do others. The Republican's campaign will be monitoring the trip, and it e-mailed reporters a paper yesterday called "Barack Obama Official Travel Briefing." The 17-page document included suggested questions for Obama, and among the sections were "Obama's lack of leadership," "Obama's lack of knowledge on Afghanistan" and "Obama's weak policy on Iran."

For security reasons, Obama's campaign has been reluctant to share details about his exact itinerary, but it breaks down into three segments: the broader Middle East; Europe; and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama's stops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being coordinated through his Senate office and the Defense Department, and officials have declined to confirm for the record the exact dates he will be there. The Democrat's campaign is coordinating his visits to the Middle East and Europe, which according to overseas reports will begin Tuesday and run through the week.

In Jordan and Israel, Obama will have to confront the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the threat that Israel feels from Iran. He will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli leaders, as well as with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in what promises to be one of the busiest and most important days of his trip. Not incidentally, that part of his trip will be an opportunity for him to reassure nervous members of the American Jewish community that he would be a reliable friend of Israel.

The Middle East visit will be followed by a rapid tour of three European capitals, where he will sit down with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany. Anti-American sentiment has increased dramatically in those countries during President Bush's nearly eight years in office, and Obama's candidacy has attracted enormous interest as a sign of possible change in relations.

Obama's largest public event of the trip will be held in Berlin, and it has already been a source of controversy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier criticized the senator for considering holding the event at the Brandenburg Gate, calling it inappropriate for a U.S. presidential candidate to use the historic site for the equivalent of a political rally. Campaign officials said yesterday that Obama had earlier ruled out speaking there and that other sites remain under discussion.

Obama visited Iraq in early 2006 and has not visited Afghanistan. Publicly critical of the president's policy of increasing the number of troops in Iraq, he has called for an end to the war and the withdrawal of combat forces over a 16-month period. But he faces questions from McCain and some military commanders about the rigidity of that timetable and about his initial opposition to a policy that has resulted in a dramatic reduction in violence there.

While in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama will be joined by two other members of the Senate, Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), but not by a traveling media contingent.

Obama's travels are unusual but not unique in this campaign. McCain visited the Middle East and Europe this past spring, although his trip drew far less attention. What marks Obama's tour as different is the size, scope and media attention it will generate.

Although Obama has been highly critical of Bush's foreign policy and has tangled repeatedly with McCain over Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and other international issues, his advisers said he does not intend to make policy declarations while overseas.

"It is important to note that it is not our intent to make policy or to negotiate," foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said. "There's one president of the United States at any given time, and we will certainly respect that."

Obama will give interviews with network anchors while abroad and probably will meet with the press corps that follows him. In those settings, he will almost certainly be urged to discuss his differences with McCain and with the administration and to further clarify his views on Iraq.

Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was White House chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan, said Obama must avoid any sign of presumptiveness during his time abroad. "You're not making pronouncements on foreign soil, but you're taking things in and showing a command and mastery of what is expected of you, should you be elected president," he said. "It is a tightrope to walk, and the choreography has to be pitch-perfect."

One Obama foreign policy adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the goals of the trip, said the candidate will be playing to three audiences while abroad: the foreign leaders with whom he would be dealing "so he can get off to a fast start"; the people of the countries he visits as a way to rebuild confidence and relationships; and the American public "to provide reassurance."

McCain has an advantage in how Americans think the candidates would deal broadly with terrorism, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. They are nearly tied on the question of how they would handle Iraq. Obama, however, has a wide lead on the question of which candidate could change the U.S. image abroad. Democratic strategist Geoffrey Garin said Obama's ability to use the trip to deepen those impressions would be "an exceptionally important accomplishment" in the context of the campaign.

Regarding whether Obama can ease concerns about his readiness to be commander in chief, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said the candidate does not have to convince everyone on that front.

"Obama doesn't have to prove to right-wingers that he's ready to be commander in chief," he said. "He has to prove to moderate Democrats and independents that he is a serious person who can operate on the world stage with a moderate chance of being successful. . . . He has to have enough credibility not to be unacceptable on national security. He doesn't have to have enough credibility for that to be his strong suit."