In D.C. - Business as Usual - A DNA Thing!

Emboldened by its relationship with Iran and increasingly playing "footsie" with Russia, is Syria positioning itself to make a move on Lebanon?

Is the growing prospect of an Obama presidency going to result in a quick testing of his resolve? (See 1 below.)

It is always in the fine print. From 3 pages to about 400 the new "Bail Out Bill" is an early Christmas Tree full of special interest baubles. Let's face it, $700 billion is just too tempting a honey pot for political paws. No matter the extent of the "crisis" in D.C. it is always business as usual. Its a DNA thing.(See 2 below.)

Big Brother in the Negev?

The concept of maintaining a weapons edge has always been patently out of kilter with reality when it comes to helping Israel. Being a tiny country surrounded by giants the concept of qualitative edge , though perhaps necessary and comforting emotionally, is also a baited target for others to keep matching. Will Russia now supply Syria and Iran with greater detection capabilities?

Many years ago Bob Hope, after a tour of Russia, Hope was aksed about Russian TV. He quipped it TV watches you. (See 3 below.)

Glick comments on Olmert's parting comments.

McCain has been pounded by Reid and Pelosi for intruding in the initial $700 billion "bail out deal" which they claim he undid but which was never a done deal in the first place. Yet, as a potential president the fact that McCain might be saddled with its consequences meant nothing to these hacks because they were more interested in scoring points with an angry and frustrated public. Winning is everything. The same with Olmert who has no problem saddling the future Israeli, PM. with his give the store away negotiations

Olmert might have made a better VP pick for Obama - they seem more two "appease" in a pod. (See 4 below.)

What others thought about last night's debate. How others see the financial straits we find ourselves in and what actions should be taken. (See 5 and 5a below.)

Wells Fargo premium purchase of Wachovia, without Federal money, should embolden those who believe "free markets" are best left to solve the problem Congress helped create and is about to make worse.

News report that McCain has abandoned Michigan. Michigan is an economic basket case. Union demands, caving in auto management, corrupt city and state government all controlled by liberal Democrats. Is Michigan a screen test of what Obama's election could wind up being for our nation. Anything is possible.

Best hope should Obama be elected is we are so broke he won't be able to do much by way of further damage and will simply make more soothing and empty speeches.

Have a great weekend. Dick


1) Stern US warning to Syria not to invade Northern Lebanon

Washington accompanied this warning to Damascus, with its first explicit threat of military intervention to aid Lebanon should Syria go through with its planned incursion of the North.

The warning, according to sources, was delivered on Sept. 28 by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to the Syrian foreign minister Walid Mualem whom she invited for an urgent meeting in New York. The day after they met, Mualem was handed a second warning by undersecretary of state David Welch, who specified precisely which Syrian movements the US government would deem crossing the Lebanese border.

The harsh words from the top two American diplomats left the Syrian minister with little option but to promise there would be no Syrian incursion. However, in a number of subsequent interviews, Mualem claimed his talks with the two American officials focused on Washington’s support for the indirect talks between Jerusalem and Damascus, a tale made of whole cloth.

In the week since Washington warned Damascus off, nothing has changed in the Syrian military deployment on the Lebanese, military sources confirm.

Syrian officials talking to Western diplomats are now maintaining that Islamic extremists are setting up an emirate in northern Lebanon which will jeopardize the stability of the entire region. Since Damascus has been warned off interfering in Lebanon by Washington, it cannot take responsibility for the consequences.

Syria’s determination to occupy the northern region of Tripoli is not lost on the Lebanese. The highest ranking Salafi authority in Lebanon, Dai al-Islam Shahhal, warned this week against an incursion by the Syrian army into north Lebanon, saying it would open 'the gates of hell and lead to what is similar to Iraq and its misery."

2) Senate 'Bailout' Bill a Bizarre Blend Indeed
By Marc Sheppard

Call it what you will, but the $700,000,000,000 credit rescue Bill that passed the Senate last night is one strange piece of lawmaking. Take one part Monday's failed H.R. 3997 and soften it to liberal pleasure. Now add it to a mental health parity measure that's languished on Capitol Hill so long it's got Paul Wellstone's name in its main title. Add a one-year patch to the alternative minimum tax, a dash of disaster relief for Hurricane Ike victims, a green energy Bill that might well have otherwise been adorned with veto ink, and plenty of porcine fat - now stir well, and Voilà!

The "bailout plan" itself, H.R. 5685 (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) , is being bundled as an amendment to H.R.1424, a Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) Bill that modifies sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 "to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans." The pure perfection of their fit is surely undeniable to all but the most cynical.

According to the Library of Congress, the Kennedy Bill passed the House and was received in the Senate in March of this year. Oddly enough, Wednesday was the first time it was ever brought to the Senate floor for consideration.

The new Bill also snuck in Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) H.R. 6049 (the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008) which had already added the ‘Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008'' in addition to "Heartland and Hurricane Ike Disaster Relief" to its broadly green legislation. Simpatico measures, to be sure.

Rangel's Bill had passed both houses -- the Senate just last month -- but had been awaiting President Bush's signature, which, according to a Statement of Administration Policy, was far from a slam dunk. The Bill includes a hodgepodge of green initiatives, including a "Carbon Audit of the Tax Code" which states that:

"The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects."


Apropos indeed.

And just for good measure, they added a dozen or so patently inappropriate tax breaks. From makers of kids' wooden arrows to race-track owners to Virgin Island rum-producers, lawmaker's just couldn't resist scoring home-town points even during what some are calling "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression."

As to the "bailout" provisions themselves, in addition to establishing the "Troubled Asset Relief Program (‘TARP') to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions," the Senate version "raises the debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion" and adds a number of sections the left had been insisting on. These include foreclosure mitigation efforts, executive compensation and corporate governance, and recoupment from the financial industry of losses to the taxpayer. Additionally, the FDIC insurance limit would be temporarily increased to $250,000.

This strange amalgam was passed by the Senate last night 74-25. It now moves back to the House, for consideration today, where opportunists get another shot at marking it up further with extraneous pet-projects at the bargaining table.

There was genuine concern voiced that provisions added to appease the left might send congressmen on the right who voted "Aye" on Monday running for the hills on Friday.

There were similar concerns expressed about the reverse dilemma arising.

But if there was any real give on the part of Senate Democrats in modifying this "emergency" Bill, it sure as hell escapes me.

You can argue the merits of such a huge government incursion into the private sector, but can anyone defend the job that same government has done handling the problem thus far?

What a mess.

3) 'Israel fears US radar base in Negev will reveal IDF secrets'
By YAAKOV KATZ

Israel is wary of the deployment of the new US high-powered radar facility in the Negev, officials were quoted as saying Thursday - The X-Band Radar.


"It's a like a pair of golden handcuffs on Israel," one top official told Time Magazine.

The magazine reported IDF officials feared that although the radar would enhance Israel's protection against Iran, it might also reveal Israel's military secrets to the US.

The radar will allow the US to keep a close watch on anything moving in Israeli skies, "even a bee", a top Israeli official, who asked not to be identified, told Time.


"Even a husband and wife have a few things they would like to keep from each other," said the official. "Now we're standing without our clothes on in front of America."

The X-Band radar's arrival in Israel last Sunday was kept under tight wraps until it was revealed over the weekend by Defense News, an industry newsletter.

According to the current plan, US soldiers will control the radar, which will be connected to the Israeli Air Force's Arrow control room in Palmahim.

The Jerusalem Post reported on Sunday that an IDF request to permit Israeli soldiers to control the radar had been declined.

Time went on to say that Israeli officials had expressed concern that the radar might anger Moscow, since its range would allow the US to monitor aircraft over southern Russia, and might prompt Russia to supply Iran and Syria with its S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.

The magazine also reported that Israeli planning and air force officials expressed concern that Defense Minister Ehud Barak did not assess the radar's possible impact on IDF operations before approving it.

The magazine said that Israeli defense experts feared that waves from the X-band radar might throw off the accuracy of a new Gil anti-tank missile also being tested in the Negev. "The Bush Administration is in the mood to give us anything, as long as we don't attack Iran," said one senior official. "So why did we take this radar?"

The system, which came in a convoy of 12 transport planes and together with a 120-member crew, has been set up temporarily at the Nevatim air base in the Negev and will be moved to a permanent site in the next few months.

The high-powered radar, known as FBX-T, will be hooked up to the US military's Joint Tactical Ground Station and, assisted by satellites, will be capable of picking up a ballistic missile shortly after launch at which point it can estimate the time and location of its impact.

Those capabilities will cut the response time of Israel's Arrow anti-missile system, which currently works with a less advanced radar.

4) Olmert's parting blows
By Caroline B. Glick



Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has never been a shrinking violent. And on Monday, he made clear that he has absolutely no intention of leaving the public stage quietly. In a Rosh Hashanah interview with Yediot Ahronot, Olmert admitted for the first time that he is negotiating deals with Syria and the Fatah-led faction of the Palestinian Authority committing Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, from dozens of neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, as well as all or nearly all of Judea and Samaria.

Olmert noted that he is the first prime minister to state explicitly that he supports Israel's geographical contraction to within the 1949 armistice lines. Indeed, none of his predecessors in office were ever so explicit. And his likely successor in office — Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni — loses her voice every time she is asked whether she believes that Israel should withdraw from Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and all of Judea and Samaria.

Olmert's willingness to spell out the expanse of the territorial handovers he supports makes him unique among Israel's premiers. But his stated view that Israel has no choice other than to withdraw from almost all the lands it took control over during the 1967 Six Day War has been the common view of every Israeli prime minister except Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu since 1993. Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon all signaled their support for this view. Indeed all of their central policies in office were predicated on it.

The question is why has this been the case? Why is it that for the past 15 years, at a certain point in their tenures in office every Israeli prime minister aside from Netanyahu has come to the conclusion that Israel must turn over its land to those sworn to its destruction?

Like Rabin, Peres, Barak and Sharon before him, Olmert makes no rational argument for withdrawal. He simply asserts it. And like his predecessors, Olmert uses three rhetorical tricks to support his assertion. First, he notes the uniqueness of his position as Prime Minister. Olmert knows Israel must surrender its land simply because he is Prime Minister. Sharon expressed this most clearly when he intoned, "What you see from here, you don't see from there."

Second, Olmert and his predecessors — and his likely successor Livni — all claim that "everybody knows" that Israel must withdraw. That is, you have to be completely out of your mind not to agree with me because every right minded person agrees with me.

Olmert made this intellectually intimidating point explicitly on Monday in reference to the Golan Heights when he said, "I want to see if there is one person in the State of Israel who believes that it is possible to make peace with Syria without conceding anything on the Golan Heights."

Finally, Olmert and his predecessors — and his likely successor — argue that it is inevitable that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. And since it is inevitable, it might as well be done right now. As Olmert said — again of the Golan Heights, "I put it to you, say in the next year or two a regional war erupts and we find ourselves in a military confrontation with Syria. ... I ask myself, what happens after we beat them? First of all we will pay a price [for victory] and it will be painful. And after we pay what we pay, what will we say to them? 'Let's talk.' And what will the Syrians say? 'Let's talk about the Golan.'"

The assertion that a prime minister knows more than regular people is true. But no secret information in the world counterbalances empirical evidence that is open for all to see. While it may or may not be true that Israel can live at peace with the Palestinians and Syrians without returning to the 1949 armistice lines, it is manifestly true that neither the Syrians nor the Palestinians are interested in living at peace with Israel. So while an interesting theoretical question, the issue of whether Israel needs to give up land for peace is completely irrelevant today.

Both the Syrians and the Palestinians know that Olmert — like his predecessors since Rabin — is willing to go back to the 1949 armistice lines in exchange for peace. And operating on this knowledge, over the past 15 years, both societies have gravitated into the Iranian axis. Today, at the same time as Syrian President Bashar Assad holds indirect talks about an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights, he has amassed 25,000 forces on his border with northern Lebanon. He is rebuilding his nuclear program with Iranian money and North Korean scientists. He has pledged to the Iranians that he will continue arming Hizbullah and Hamas and that his negotiations with Olmert will be coordinated ahead of time with Iran.

As for the Palestinians, at every stage of their relationship with Israel for the past 15 years, every one of their leaders — from Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — has been categorical in his refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Moreover, insofar as Fatah is concerned, the violent conflict with Israel was supposed to have ended in 1993. In 1993 Yassir Arafat pledged that from then on, all of the Palestinians' issues with Israel would be resolved through negotiations and that terror would be combated, not fostered.

While calling for immediate territorial surrenders to enemies uninterested in peace, Olmert — like his predecessors— also claims that the risk involved in surrendering the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is minimal because Israel is so strong. As Olmert put it, "We are stronger than they are. I tell you, Israel is the strongest country in the Middle East. We can handle all our enemies and we can handle all our enemies together and win."

Yet Olmert — like his predecessors — fails to acknowledge that if we give up the lands we took control over in 1967 that we will be much weaker. And our ability to deter our enemies from joining together to attack us will be severely curtailed. He ignores the fact that it was Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 that inspired the Palestinians to attack us in September 2000. He ignores the fact that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 inspired Hizbullah to attack us in 2006. And he ignores the fact that Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah in 2006 inspired Hamas to take control of Gaza in 2007. And in all of this, he ignores the fact that Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria are controlled by Iran.

As to Iran, when the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program comes up, the leader who says we can beat all our enemies at once is suddenly singing another tune. Israel, "the strongest country in the Middle East" is crazy if it thinks it can defend itself against its most formidable foe.

In Olmert's view, "Part of our exaggeration of our power and our lack of any sense of proportion is found in the statements being made here about Iran. ...The assumption that if America, Russia and China and Britain and Germany don't know how to handle the Iranians that we the Israelis do know — this is an example of a loss of proportions."

So Olmert, like Sharon, Barak, Peres and Rabin before him, has made the determination that the only strategy that Israel can follow is one of utter defeatism and surrender. And he — like they before him — has made this strategic calculation in the face of empirical evidence which shows that whatever the costs of retaining the status quo — or of actually defeating our enemies — the cost of surrender and defeatism is surrender and defeat. That is, the cost to the country of following their lead to surrender is higher than the cost of not surrendering or subcontracting our survival to outside powers.

So if the view that Israel's only option is surrender has no basis in empirical evidence, what accounts for Olmert's baseless assertions?

The answer unfortunately, is clear. Quite simply, life is easier for premiers, and much better for former premiers on the Left than on the Right.

As Olmert considers his options going forward, he knows two things. First, he knows that the international lecture circuit is eminently more generous to former Israeli prime ministers who speak ill of Israel than it is for former premiers who defend Israel. Second, he knows that if he ever hopes to return to politics, he will only be able to return as the head of the Left. His explicit statements on the need for Israeli capitulation will serve him well in both ventures.

Then there is the issue of Olmert's legal woes. While Olmert's policy decisions are the same as all of his predecessors, the circumstances in which he is leaving office are analogous only to those that confronted Ehud Barak.

Like Olmert, Barak left office under a cloud of criminal probes. And in his final months in office, he cast all remaining vestiges of strategic rationality to the seven winds in his desperate negotiations with Arafat. Despite the fact that his government had already collapsed, neither the Supreme Court nor the Attorney General's office told him he lacked the legal right to concede Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. And in recognition of his embrace of post-Zionism, once Barak was out of office, all the criminal probes against him were quietly closed.

Like Barak, Olmert probably won't be around long enough to conclude the surrenders he strives for. But that doesn't mean that his statements are not dangerous for the country.

Far Left politicians and their counterparts in the media claim that Olmert is brave to speak as openly as he has. And this is true. It does take some bravery to stick your finger in the eye of the general public — which doesn't support your views.

Olmert's statements and actions, which contradict the pledges he made to voters in 2006 are a slap in the face of the Israeli electorate. Unfortunately, the public has grown all to used to such blows. Rabin, Barak and Sharon were all elected on the basis of their hawkish platforms. And they all abandoned their platforms after they were elected. This constant deceit has made the public cynical and engendered a sense of powerlessness among Israeli citizens. This sense is merely exacerbated by the sight of Livni working madly to avoid standing for election by attempting to form a new government. This is all the more true given that she rests her claim to governing legitimacy on her narrow victory in a tiny primary race riven by allegations of corruption.

So by ignoring the basic reality of Israel's strategic challenges and speaking of irrelevant concessions to imaginary peace partners while demonstrating his abject contempt for the public, Olmert is causing us great harm. He is reinforcing our belief that we have no option other than deceitful leaders who ignore our rights and reality. And this is a dangerous delusion. Because the truth is that not all of Israel's leaders are defeatists. There are still leaders that put the country first. They are simply not friends of Olmert's.

5) Palin Scored Points But Didn't Win - Howard Fineman, Newsweek

Joe Biden Was No Match for 'Joe Six-Pack' - Peggy Noonan, WSJ

Palin's Steady Act All GOP Could Ask For - Vaughn Ververs, CBS News

Sarah Palin Changed Her Image Overnight - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

Hockey Mom on Thin Ice - E.J. Dionne, Washington Post

The Veep Debate: Palin Is Back - Rich Lowry, New York Post

In Debate, GOP Ticket Survives One Test - Adam Nagaourney, NY Times

Hail Mary vs. Cool Barry - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

Obama or McCain, Iran Stance Won't Change - Michael Rubin, Australian

More Troops the Answer in Afghanistan? - Hosenball & Isikoff, Newsweek

Debate Wrap: Palin Wins By Not Losing - Tom Bevan

5a) Democrat Fingerprints All Over Crisis - Dominic Lawson, The Independent

Why the Bank Bill Should Pass - Rep. Steny Hoyer, Wall Street Journal

GOP Leaders Face Bailout Pressure - Reid Wilson, Politics Nation

Jitters in the House of Representatives? - Francis & Sasseen, Der Spiegel

Financial Crisis Has Shaken Global Politics - Philip Stephens, FT

Kill Bill -- Vol. 3 - David Harsanyi, RealClearPolitics

Other Pathways Out of Financial Crisis - David Ignatius, Washington Post