Obama, next Irish President! Maliki's Underwear!

Obama probably crossed the line in believing he is already president while in Iraq. This arrogant puppy seems to have concluded, in order to get elected, it would be clever to highlight his viewpoint about troop withdrawal and urge Maliki to side with him. Maliki, crafty independent politician that he is, jumped at the chance to bite the hand that has brought him to power and made his ability to govern more effective.

If GW decided to pull all our troops out today and such were possible, Maliki would need to change his underwear. Our training of Iraqi troops would cease and Iraq would be left to its own devices and the vacuum caused would be filled by Iran and probably the civil war, all once feared and predicted, would promptly begin.

Maliki should heed the adage: 'be careful what you wish for, you may get it.' (See 1 below.)

Obama is more interested in defying protocol, keeping his smiling toothy grin on TV, while continuing his merry rock star sojourn trailed by America's fawning press and media.

Meanwhile, GW and Petraeus' "Surge success" allows Obama to reap benefits. In fact, Obama has already begun admitting he was wrong. By the time Obama comes home, the press and media will point to this reversal in judgment as evidence of his awesome intellectual capability. Obama ain't even Irish but he seems to have their luck.(See 2 below.)

Today's Wall Street Journal has three LTE's defending Phil Gramm and his recent "whiner" comment. Had Phil Gramm been nominated and elected president, when he ran, we would be a far different country. Phil, was always willing to say what was on his mind regardless of the political consequences and that is what endeared him to McCain and McCain to Gramm.

In a recent News Week there is quite a good article on the tenuous relationship that exists between GW and McCain. Though McCain supports GW on Iraq, he has his doubts about GW's overall presidential abilities but, according to the article, understands he must keep the peace in order to pacify the Republican Right and other Party loyalists. Furthermore, McCain did enthusiastically support and campaigned tirelessly for Bush against Kerry because between the two McCain concluded GW was the better choice.

What concerns me now is Obama seems to believe we need a similar approach in Afghanistan that we pursued in Iraq regarding a "surge." Granted we may need more troop levels but the two countries are distinctly different and need to be thought of in that manner. What helped us overcome al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq will not necessarily win the day for us in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan lacks the sophistication of Iraq's educated populace and has far more varieties of sectional differences ruled by local tribal leaders. Afghanistan lacks oil and thus, a strong potential economy that can sustain future development. There are many other significant differences and I do not get the sense Obama understands this fully. He was wrong about the benefits accruing from the surge in Iraq and now seems to believe, in a linear manner, more surge is called for in Afghanistan. If I am to judge Obama based on his own judgment he again comes up short in that department.

Another editorial in today's Wall Street Journal takes GW to task for his seeming policy shift regarding Iran. The editorial argues effective diplomacy means something for something not something for nothing. The Journal highlights the fact that GW's 'legacy-hunting has resulted in an accommodationist drift.' This means a "surge" toward recognition without meaningful verification of Iran's nuclear intentions. In other words, a "Pass Go and collect ticket" has become the Bush State Department's new approach. Sec. Rice is dutifully saying no change has occurred and our presence at last week's meeting was solely as an observer.

What this all means is another few weeks for Iran to continue developing their dream of nuclear weapons and then we will re-gather to see what more we can do about threatening them with sanctions. That could take well into the Fall and then GW can claim he did what Obama wanted and now it is time for the next president to figure a more workable strategy. Meanwhile, as previously, noted an armada of ships is burning more fuel in The Straits of Hormuz.

Newt seems to agree and he asks have our leaders lost their minds? (See 3 below.)

Clever federal revenuer. Chuck might serve in Obama's administration as The IRS Commissioner. (See 4 below.)



Dick



1) Maliki's Bet
Editorial of The New York Sun


It's usually a bad idea for one democratic country to meddle in another democratic country's election. But the boost Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq just gave to Senator Obama in the American campaign has to be one of the most stunning pieces of political nerve in memory.

It could have been a disastrous visit by the Democrat to Baghdad. Mr. Maliki could have left his meeting with Mr. Obama and said, "If America does what Mr. Obama wants and announces to our enemies when it will leave Iraq, Al Qaeda will regain the ground it has lost here, my country will backslide into genocidal chaos, the Iranians will gain more influence here, and the oil supply risks being shut off, taking the gasoline price in America to $10 a gallon. I told Mr. Obama that and he told me that if he is elected, America is going to abandon Iraq anyway, no matter what happens, because the peace and security of Iraq isn't worth the life of one more American soldier, and because the war in Iraq is costing money that he wants to spend on health care and highways for Americans."

But it wasn't. The Iraqi premier said nothing of the sort. Instead Mr. Maliki essentially endorsed Mr. Obama's withdrawal timeline, defanging the attacks the McCain campaign has been directing for months at Mr. Obama's plan for a retreat. Mr. Maliki, as our Eli Lake reports today at page one, is calculating that Mr. Obama will win, and wants to be in his good grace. Some results may already be bearing fruit; in an interview with ABC News, Mr. Obama rejected what he called a false choice, "a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water," suggesting that the withdrawal would be subject to conditions and events on the ground.

The great irony, of course, is that if Mr. Obama had his way and the Iraq War had never been fought, there wouldn't be a democratically elected prime minister in Iraq for Mr. Obama to negotiate with. Mr. Obama wouldn't be visiting there as a presidential candidate, same as he isn't going to Iran or Syria. There would be a Saddam Hussein in power interesting in killing the American president, not winning his friendship. And if the surge that Mr. Obama so opposed had not been successful, Mr. Maliki would not have the security situation to contemplate a withdrawal timeline for American troops. He would be worried about his own personal safety.

On both the war and the surge, Senator McCain was right, and Mr. Obama was wrong. That those two decisions provide a context for the elected premier of a free Iraq to lend Mr. Obama a hand in a presidential contest — well, it is far too early to predict the outcome of the American election, but let us just say that if Mr. Maliki is placing a bet on Mr. Obama, he is also placing one on Mr. McCain, which is that in the event the Republican is elected, he will place principle and the national interest over politics and petty vindictiveness. For our part we see the emergence of an Iraq making its own choices in these matters rather than having them dictated by the American ambassador or American generals as yet another sign of victory in the Battle of Iraq. The Iraqis want America as their friends whether Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain is president. For all the talk by critics of how the Iraq War supposedly alienated America from the world, here is an administration in Baghdad maneuvering for a friend in the White House.

2) Win the War, Lose the Election
B TOM BEVAN

Jonah Goldberg picks up on the point I made the other day about success of the surge in Iraq being a good thing for Obama and a bad thing for McCain:

But the tragic Catch-22 for the Arizona senator is that the more the surge succeeds, the more politically advantageous it is for Obama.

Voters don't care about the surge; they care about the war. Americans want it to be over -- and in a way they can be proud of. [snip]

If it [the war] were going worse, McCain's Churchillian rhetoric would match reality more. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, Al Qaeda in Iraq almost totally routed and even Shiite Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's support for an American troop drawdown undoubtedly pushes the perceived stakes even lower.

The success in Iraq has already pushed the war much lower in the minds of voters around the country, who are now more focused on the economy by more than two to one margins. Here are the numbers from the most recent round of state polls by Quinnipiac:

MI: Economy 56, Iraq 18
CO: Economy 47, Iraq 19
MN: Economy 51, Iraq 21
WI: Economy 50, Iraq 20

The UNH's most recent poll in New Hampshire, released yesterday, showed voters' focus on the economy rising 10 points since the last survey in late April (to 41% from 31%), while Iraq declined in importance to voters by 9 points (to 8% from 17%). Over that same period, John McCain went from a six-point lead over Obama (49-43) to a three-point deficit (43-46).

Put simply, it will be a lot easier for Obama to pass the Commander in Chief test if the public considers the war in Iraq won when they go to the polls in November.


3) Have Our Leaders Lost Their Minds?
By Newt Gingrich


I have two grandchildren, ages 5 and 7. If you're a parent or grandparent yourself, I challenge you not to think about a child you love when you read what I'm about to tell you.

I challenge you not to share my disgust with the barbarians who use the blood of innocents to further their political agendas.

And I challenge you not to share my contempt for the bureaucrats who think they can appease them.

For the governments that think their actions don't have consequences.

For the politicians who think that something - anything - good can come from allowing the killers of children to walk free.

Child Killers Sent to "Protest" the Camp David Accords

Smadar Haran, her husband Danny, and their two daughters, ages two and four, were at home in their apartment in northern Israel on the night of April 22, 1979. They were asleep in their beds around midnight when they awoke to gunfire and grenades exploding.

Terrorists, sent by terrorist leader Abu Abbas to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty at Camp David the year before, were breaking into their building.

Desperate to hide, Smadar carried her two-year-old into a crawl space above their bedroom. So terrified was she that her baby girl would cry out and alert the terrorists to their hiding place that Smadar held her hand tightly over the girl's mouth. Too tightly. By the time they were rescued hours later, the little girl was dead. Smadar had accidentally smothered her own child.

But the horror doesn't end there.
Kuntar Smashed a Four-Year-Old Girl's Head Against a Rock Until She Was Dead

While Smadar and her child hid in the crawlspace, Danny and the four-year-old ...
... ran out of the apartment for the safety of an underground shelter. They didn't make it. The terrorists took Danny and the little girl down to the beach where one of them, Samir Kuntar, shot Danny in front of the girl. His goal, according to Smadar, was that the sight of her father being killed "would be the last sight she would ever see."

Then Kuntar smashed the little girl's skull against a rock until she was dead.

Last week, in a deal brokered by the Israeli government with the terrorist group Hezbollah, Samir Kuntar, a cowardly child killer, walked out of an Israeli prison.
Israel Didn't Cave to Terrorists in 1985 But It Did Last Week

The deal the Israeli government made with Hezbollah included the exchange of the remains of two Israeli soldiers killed by Hezbollah in return for five live terrorists in Israeli prisons, including Kuntar.

And Kuntar was no ordinary terrorist prisoner. Abu Abbas was so impressed with Kuntar's savage child-killing tactics that Abbas masterminded the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985 - including the killing and dumping into the ocean of the defenseless, elderly, wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer - to secure Kuntar's release.

Israel didn't cave into terrorists in 1985, but it did last week. And the deal it struck with Hezbollah will have disastrous consequences for Israel and the world.

The concession, writes the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick "will cement Iran's control of Lebanon through Hizbullah. It also all but guarantees that any future Israeli soldiers taken hostage by Hizbullah will be killed on the spot. Why care for hostages when you can murder them and expect to receive the same payoff you would get if you kept them alive?"

But possibly even more disappointing than the Israeli government's willingness to make deals with terrorists is the reception that greeted the release of Samir Kuntar in parts of the Middle East last week.

Columnist Mona Charen reports Kuntar literally received a red carpet reception in Beirut. Charen writes:

The government closed all offices and declared a national day of celebration. Tens of thousands of Lebanese cheered, waved flags, threw confetti, and set off fireworks as Hezbollah staged a rally to celebrate their "victory" over Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority, sent "blessings to Samir Kuntar's family." PA spokesman Ahmad Abdul Rahman sent "warm blessings to Hezbollah . . . on the return of the heroes of freedom . . . headed by the great Samir Kuntar."

This barbaric display enrages me and it should enrage all Americans.

Both the Palestinian Authority and the Lebanese government are recipients of U.S. taxpayers' money through foreign assistance. Political leaders - and the people they lead - who cheer the release of despicable child murderers are unworthy recipients of our assistance.

Congress should insist that the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority retract their support for Kuntar or it should cut off U.S. assistance to them.
Appeasement Comes Home to America

As if the news from Israel weren't bad enough, the seemingly irresistible urge among some foreign policy elites to appease our worst enemies came home to America last week.

The State Department sent its third most senior official to sit in on nuclear "negotiations" with Iran, even as Iran continues its relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

In the past, President Bush had a label for such a move. He called it "appeasement." Last week, his own State Department succeeded in taking the first steps in a futile attempt to appease a dictator who has called for the destruction of Israel and defeat of the West. His stated goal? A world without America.

And so I ask again: Have our leaders lost their minds?
"Hitler Tamed By Prison" - The Unexplainable Desire of Elites to Lie to Themselves

As a historian, I look for clues for how to manage our present from how we've managed our past.

One thing history shows is that some elites have a dangerous and unexplainable desire to lie to themselves.

A case in point: In 1924, Adolph Hitler was released from a German prison after serving time for conspiracy to overthrow the German government.

Nine years before he took power and led Germany on an irrevocable course toward world war and a campaign of systematic genocide against Jews, Gypsies, Catholics and others, the headline in the New York Times was:

"Hitler Tamed By Prison"

Read closely. The article concludes on this deluded note: "[Hitler's] behavior during imprisonment convinced the authorities that [he], like his political organization, known as the Volkischer, was no longer to be feared. It is believed he will return to private life and return to Austria, the country of his birth."
When the Negotiations Don't Work, What Are We Prepared to Do?

As America looks ahead to the swearing in of a new president next January, we need now, more than ever, leaders who ... resist the temptation to delude themselves about the nature of our enemies.

As a young Senator with little foreign policy experience, Barack Obama faces a unique challenge. As I write this, Senator Obama is traveling abroad seeking to convince the American people that he has the leadership ability to be commander in chief.

Senator Obama has also repeatedly assured us that he, too, will negotiate with regimes like Iran. But the question we owe to ourselves is to ask Senator Obama and our current State Department:

When negotiations don't work, what are you prepared to do?

Talking isn't a policy, it's a process. And talking to people who have vowed your destruction is at best a futile and at worst a dangerous process.

Just ask the Israelis. After greeting Samir Kuntar with a hug and a kiss when he returned to Lebanon last week, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah declared, "The time of defeat is long gone. Today is the time of victory."

4) Young Chuck moved to Texas and bought a Donkey from a farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the Donkey the next day.

The next day he drove up and said, 'Sorry son, buI have some bad news, the donkey died.'

Chuck replied,

'Well, then just give me my money back.'

The farmer said, 'Can't do that. I went and spent it already.'

Chuck said, 'Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey.'

The farmer asked, 'What ya gonna do with him?

Chuck said, 'I'm going to raffle him off.'

The farmer said, You can't raffle off a dead donkey!'

Chuck said, 'Sure I can Watch me.. I just won't tell anybody he's dead.'

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, 'What happened with that dead donkey?'

Chuck said, 'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and
made a profit of $898.00.'

The farmer said, 'Didn't anyone complain?'

Chuck said, 'Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back.'

Chuck now works for the government.