The Fourth Estate's Abdication of Its Civic Responsibility!

A spoof? Maybe not! (See 1 below.)

Can Obama's soothing words overcome Iran's brutal ways. (See 2 and 2a below.)

I have not checked the authenticity but it would be a very interesting twist should this prove even remotely factual. (See 3 below.)

Another type crash on the way? (See 4 below.)

I have railed against the press and media's abdication of their social/civic responsibility to our society til you are tired of reading about it. Today's Op Ed, in the WSJ, reveals that The Washington Post is now seeking revenue by selling its own influence.

My father was a lawyer's lawyer but never practiced criminal law. He told me that, though criminals were entitled to a vigorous defense, he personally concluded, early on, that association with them would soon rub off and he did not want to subject himself to the potential taint.

It is the responsibility of the press to aggressively uncover and report on misdeeds of public officials, yet, be objective and truthful in doing so. In the case of The Washngton Post the desire to seek revenue has led them astray.

Our 'Fourth Estate' is becoming increasingly bankrupt - financially and morally.(See 5 below.)

British Col. verifies what we all know but what the pess, media, U.N and most European nations refuse to admit.

We kill civilians in Pakistan attacking Taliban and it is reported as an every day event. War is hell and particularly when the enemy seeks to hide behind civilians and locate among civilian structures and commerce. (See 6 below.)

Constant biased attacks on Israel is simply a subtle method of de-legitimizing the nation.

We live in a two faced world and though we should not become indifferent it will not change.(See 6a and 6b below.)

Economic afterthoughts and defending being stuck in the muck and mire of bad policy. More stimulus? Why choke twice? (See 7 below.)

George Will on McNamara -" Two of behavioralism's reinforcing assumptions were: Things that can be quantified can be controlled. And everything can be quantified. So, pick a problem, any problem. Military insurgency in Indochina? The answer is counterinsurgency. What can be, and hence must be, quantified? Body counts, surely. Bingo: A metric of success."

McNamara was embued with reading his own press, drank his own bathwater and was very brainy.
Has McNamara been resurrected in the guise of our youthful speechifying president? There are parallels.

Truman would never have hired McNamara, in fact he fired one for insubordination. (See 8 below.)

Conservatism is growing but not under a Republican Banner. I can relate because I have no real party allegiance since I believe both parties are a disaster. (See 9 below.)

A Russian attack on Georgia would be both embarassing and a bad move on Putin's part but he lives in his own bubble and could mis-calculate. (See 10 below.)

Should China conclude N Korea is a burden watch out!

It would be ironic indeed if China's actions revealed us sitting on or thumbs vis a vis Iran. (See 11 below.)

Rob Peter to pay Paul - do anything to get health care plan passed even though it will lead to bureaucratic rationing.

When all else fails lower your standards, quit thinking outside the box and let government control it.

The goal is to construct a bill that attracts enough votes. Whether it satisfies voters is of little importance because government solutions exist to be changed and changed and changed. That is what change is all about.(See 12 below.)

Innovative Israel. (See 13 below.)

Dick


1)The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama. The stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.

After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings: The stamp is in perfect order. There is nothing wrong with the adhesive. People are spitting on the wrong side.

2)iran1.pps (2034KB)

2a)Jihadist Magazine: 'The Spread of Democracy – A Victory for the U.S. and Israel'

In an anti-democracy article titled "The Spread of Democracy - A Victory for the U.S. and Israel," Abu Taha 'Abdallah Al-Miqdad enumerates democracy's crimes against humanity, and particularly against the Muslims, and warns that support for democracy is apostasy from Islam.

Following are excerpts from the article, which appeared in the Global Islamic Media Front magazine Sada Al-Jihad:

"Human History Has Never Known Villainous Massacres Such As Those of the Era in Which Democrats Emerged"

"…Human history has never known villainous massacres such as those of the era in which democrats emerged. World Wars I and II are evidence of the extent of the democrats' moral deterioration and their failure to take into account the simplest of [moral] principles of life customary among people in past eras. The war being waged today in the Muslim lands adds innumerably more crimes, attesting to the filthiness of their souls and the hardness of their hearts...

"The former U.S. president, George W. Bush the Crusader, said in statements to the press on April 30, 2005: 'In the long run, terrorism will be defeated by the spread of freedom and democracy. This is actually the only way [to defeat it].' In his speech at the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit on February 8, 2005, the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon the Zionist, addressed [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud 'Abbas, saying: "My congratulations on your wonderful victory in the elections for the presidency of the Palestinian Authority, [because] this victory and the way that you want to lead your people has the potential for bringing about a true change of direction and for affecting the entire area. Likewise, I hope that you will succeed in leading your people on the path of democracy and preservation of law and order, to the establishment of an independent democratic state.'"


"Our Clerics [i.e. Salafi Jihadi Clerics] Have Spoken of Democracy and Clarified That It Is an Infidel Regime"

"With regard to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, he [too] is trying to spread democracy, but his view is different in the details, since he has stressed in various places that he will in no way relinquish the spread of democracy in the world during his presidency, and that he intends to [spread it] extensively - but with general diplomatic plans and by greatly increasing U.S. aid to the world in spheres such as fighting poverty, spreading education, and health care, and by encouraging trade and economic partnership with the U.S. [Obama] is likewise calling to link U.S. aid to progress in efforts to [institute] reform and democracy in the countries interested in receiving this aid...

"Democracy is a great tribulation and a huge catastrophe, but it is a proven indicator in winnowing out the ranks of the righteous believers, keeping the good [among them] and ejecting the miscreants whose hearts are sick. [On the one hand] are piled up all the democrats - Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Shi'ites, Zoroastrians, apostates, hypocrites, Murji'ites, and Ash'arites - and [on the other hand are] the ranks of the Muslims clinging to the path of Allah straighten out... and they stand against the entire world, certain of Allah's victory and aid...

"Though our clerics [i.e. salafi jihadi clerics] have spoken of democracy and clarified that it is an infidel regime, I will cite for you Wagdi Ghneim, who is known for his affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood movement, who are the greatest proponents of democracy in our time. He stated in his book Divine Shura and Manmade Democracy (Rabaniyyat Al-Shura wa-Wadh'iat Al-Dimuqratiyya): 'Democracy is erroneous from its foundation. Allah's religion [i.e. Islam] considers it wrong, and anyone who believes in it, promotes it, confirms it, accepts it, or acts according to it... is an apostate, even if he has a Muslim name and falsely claims that he is a believing Muslim - because in Allah's religion, Islam and democracy are absolutely incompatible.'


"Democracy Directly Impairs Tawhid"

"The dangers of democracy are clear for all to see, since it directly impairs tawhid [the belief in Allah's unity]. If we consider the opinions of Westerners, in whose lands this ugly germ sprouted and grew, we will find that it is [also] loathsome to some of their researchers, since as one American researcher described it, democracy means preferring the opinion of 11 asses over the opinion of 10 scholars." [1]

The article was accompanied by photos of elections in Israel, Iran, and the U.S.:

[1] Sada Al-Jihad, No. 33, Rabi'I 1430 (February-March 2009), pp. 16-18.

3)AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group Americans for Freedom of Information has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College.

Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder. M r. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.


4)Does Obama Want to Own the Airlines? Welcome to government for the benefit of government officials and their hangers-on.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR

Only luck and falling oil prices saved Washington from having to face mass bankruptcy of the airline industry last year. Now the specter is rising again. Fuel prices are up. Traffic continues to plummet amid a global recession. United Airlines last week mortgaged its spare-parts inventory to raise cash at a usurious 17% interest rate.

Yet the Obama Justice Department has come out of the blocks trying to scuttle a promising experiment to stabilize the chronically unprofitable U.S. airline sector. The new administration seemingly won't let companies fail, and won't let them succeed either.

The airline industry's self-help solution has been an evolving trio of international alliances, partly blessed with "antitrust immunity" by the U.S. Department of Transportation. One, the Star Alliance led by United and Lufthansa, is currently poaching Continental from a rival alliance, SkyTeam. DOT was set to approve their application last week when Justice belatedly intervened with a 58-page complaint about why the pact should be restructured.

To anyone drilled in the antitrust mindset, Justice's argument won't seem outlandish. It frets about reduced competition on this or that international route, and sees little chance of competitive entry by new carriers despite fat profits that presumably would be on offer. It argues, in a fashion typical of antitrust these days, that nonstop flights are a market unto themselves, so connecting flights on the same routes don't count.

But the real fulcrum is Justice's insistence, or plea, that DOT should set a high bar for antitrust immunity, because antitrust enforcement has been such a gosh-darn boon to consumers.

Justice offers no supporting evidence for this proposition, which has resisted academic verification. And in dismissing the "putative" benefits of immunized airline alliances, Justice fails even to acknowledge the one benefit that Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has emphasized: "These alliances are life savers for airlines. That is the premise from which we start. We believe it. The airlines believe it."

In part, such alliances are substitutes for international airline mergers (which are prohibited under U.S. law), but are more interesting than mergers, thanks to the flexibility with which carriers can enter and exit cooperative agreements with each other.

The antitrust mindset naturally sees such cooperation as always harmful, inflating prices and gouging consumers. But then why does organized labor oppose the deals? Shouldn't workers favor alliances if they reduce competitive pressure on wages? Yet Justice's intervention came after United's pilots ran a full-page ad in Roll Call attacking the company's own deal.

And why do carriers lobby against each other's pacts? Shouldn't they favor anything that leads to oligopoly pricing? And what to make of Continental's decision to jilt SkyTeam and jump to Star, shifting the competitive balance on the North Atlantic?

Obama antitrust chief Christine Varney doesn't have much good to say about her Bush predecessors. But she praises their record of cartel-busting. She might examine that record for what it actually says about the incentive to collude.

It shows, for one thing, that companies are inclined to snuggle up mainly to share losses and preserve capacity in a downturn or to curb the free-riding of powerful customers. When profits are available, on the other hand, they quickly go back to competing to maximize their respective shares rather than colluding to limit their individual upsides.

These incentives would very likely prevail in the highly flexible airline alliances. Such alliances are no miracle cure for what ails the domestic carriers, but they would open a window to let us see beyond antitrust's indiscriminate prejudice against cooperative acts by competitors.

Of course, this would fly in the face of Ms. Varney's agenda, which is to expand the bailiwick of the Washington antitrust bar. Even now, she has turned her attention from airlines to the mobile-phone business on the theory that any industry that hasn't collapsed into government receivership must be doing something wrong.

Mr. Obama blabs about the evils of lobbying, but his administration is fast becoming the greatest fillip to lobbying ever seen. Ms. Varney has now horned in on the DOT's action, forcing the airline business and all its camp followers to come and pay tribute. Her choice of targets is obviously designed for political effect. Airlines and mobile-phone operators both touch the public in ways that leave the public frequently annoyed.

What we're seeing here and elsewhere from the new administration is not some rebirth of thoughtful liberalism, but a spastic descent into machine liberalism -- government for the benefit of government officials and their hangers-on. Mr. Obama, however, may not be so pleased with the result if it means he must soon add the airlines to the collection of failed industries being run out of the White House.

5) When Newspapers Peddle Influence: A revealing scandal at the Washington Post.
By THOMAS FRANK

Some time last week the Washington Post issued a flier advertising a "salon" on the health-care issue. Over dinner at the home of the paper's publisher, Katharine Weymouth, participants were promised "a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds."

The paper's executive editor and its "health-care reporters" would be there too, but not in a "confrontational" capacity, you could rest assured. Everything would be safely "off-the-record." And you could "bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table" for a mere $25,000.

Even in Washington, it's unusual to see an actual price tag placed on a chance to "alter the debate," as the Post's flier tastefully put it. Stranger still is it to see the city's scourge of public corruption -- the Post broke the Watergate story and the Walter Reed scandal, among others -- seemingly offering its own good offices for hire.

It was a moment of rare, piquant hypocrisy. Let us take it slow and savor every drop.

To begin with, just think of the functions of righteousness that the Post effectively put up on the block. Here was journalism's zealous guardian of professional rectitude with its hand apparently out for a little bit of baksheesh. Here was the definer of the capital's consensus, the policer of its ideological boundaries, seemingly offering to adjust its vast reserves of Washington wisdom for you if the price was right.

In such a ham-handed manner, too. When the leading newspaper of the capital city of the world's most powerful country decides to turn influence-peddler, is this the best it can do? An advertisement that reads as though it were promoting expensive scotch? ("Bringing together those powerful few.") Not even favorite Post targets like Jack Abramoff stooped to that.

Even worse were the lame excuses offered by the paper's brass, who blamed one another after the embarrassing story broke and immediately cancelled the get-together. The flier hadn't been properly "vetted," they said. Ms. Weymouth had been out of town. Plus assorted other feeble explanations.

If this was a slip it was a Freudian one, the kind that tells us something true and revealing about what is going on inside.

We are living, after all, in a sort of conflict-of-interest golden age. Professionalism is for sale almost wherever you choose to look. Among the forces that most conspicuously drove the late real-estate bubble, for example, were appraisers and bond rating agencies that apparently decided to put themselves on the market.

The city of Washington is an extreme case of this marketized world. The capital swarms with hired guns, payola pundits, and think tanks on a mission. Every bad idea that has ever appealed to the funding class is well-represented here. And with the coming of the health-care debate, as the Post itself has noted, the entire apparatus has swung into well-compensated action.

Then there is the city's cult of power, in which the Post sometimes serves as high priest. Despite its many famous takedowns of the corrupt, the newspaper often seems fascinated with the lives of the rich and the well-connected: their struggles for access, the clever things they say, the trappings of their wealth, the techniques by which they have monetized their power.

In April, for example, one Post columnist described a dinner salon series run by the Atlantic magazine whose guests "are as A-list as they come." Superstar names were dropped. The benefits to journalism were vigorously asserted. Rahm Emanuel himself was quoted hailing the suspension of "the adversarial."

The Post's own confused relationship with power is also often summarized by reference to dinner parties, in this case the ones given by Ms. Weymouth's grandmother, Katharine Graham. "The great men of Washington, up until the Nixon administration, came regularly to Mrs. Graham's dinner parties, the best ticket in town, and as they socialized over good food and wine, the adversarial role diminished," wrote David Halberstam in his 1979 book, "The Powers That Be." "They were close, they were friends, these were not just men of power, they were men of good will, events were seen as they wanted them seen."

All that was missing, apparently, was a price tag.

Today, of course, the newspaper industry is in crisis. And public service, along with all such intangible ideals, is quickly disappearing into the cash nexus. The only possible reason to revive Ms. Graham's legendary dinners today is as a revenue stream.

Instead, of course, what the Post's proprietors did was hasten the day of reckoning. If I had $25,000 to spare, I'd advise them to forget about befriending the A-list. Stick to the public -- what you might call the Z-list.

6) Pakistani officials: Suspected US strikes kill 45
By CHRIS BRUMMITT

Suspected U.S. unmanned aircraft launched two attacks against militants loyal to the head of the Pakistani Taliban on Wednesday, killing at least 45 in the latest in a barrage of strikes against a group also being targeted by the Pakistani military, intelligence officials said.

The convergence of U.S. and Pakistani interests in the South Waziristan tribal region suggests the two uneasy allies were cooperating in the strikes, making it harder for Islamabad to protest them publicly as it has in the past.

The army denied signing off on the attacks and insisted they were hurting its campaign against Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud by alienating local tribes it is trying to enlist in the fight.

Meanwhile, an army spokesman said a Pakistani jet attack wounded the local Taliban commander in the scenic Swat Valley elsewhere in the northwest. Troops have been battling militants in Swat for more than two months, an offensive that has so far failed to net any top insurgent leaders.

The mountainous border region is home to al-Qaida and Taliban leaders who plot attacks in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, which is witnessing an unprecedented level of violence against U.S. and NATO troops.

South Waziristan is the stronghold of Mehsud and his followers, whom the government blames for more than 90 percent of the suicide bombings in Pakistan in recent years. The U.S. State Department says Mehsud is a key al-Qaida facilitator in the region.

Suspected American drones have carried out more than 45 attacks in the region since last August. Although most have targeted foreign al-Qaida militants and those accused of violence in Afghanistan, increasingly they are aimed at the Mehsud network.

The first strike Wednesday took place before dawn. Six missiles were fired at a mountaintop training camp in the Karwan Manza area of South Waziristan, killing 10 militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media.

Hours later, 12 miles to the east, missiles hit four vehicles carrying Taliban militants, killing at least 35, including a key Taliban commander, one intelligence official said. Another said 50 were killed.

Independent verification of the targets and casualties was not possible because the region is remote, dangerous and largely inaccessible to journalists. U.S. and Pakistani officials do not publicly comment on such strikes.

On Tuesday, a suspected U.S. missile attack killed 12 militants in South Waziristan, including five foreigners, according to intelligence officials. Another recent strike killed up to 80 insurgents attending a funeral.

The timing is significant because Pakistan's military is also carrying out bombing runs and firing mortar rounds at militant targets in the region as part of efforts to kill or capture Mehsud and his followers. It says it plans to launch a large offensive there soon.

The government routinely protests suspected U.S. missile strikes as violations of Pakistani sovereignty and has publicly asked the U.S. to give it technology to launch its own attacks. But many analysts suspect the government — which has received billions of dollars a year from the U.S. since 2001 — supports the strikes, especially those against Mehsud and his Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

"They are decrying them on one hand and aiding and abetting them on the other," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the U.S.-based Atlantic Council. "It is helpful for the Pakistanis when the TTP is being targeted. There is obviously much better coordination now."

Speaking after Tuesday's attack, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas insisted the U.S. help was unwelcome and alienated local tribes it wanted to enlist in the fight against Mehsud.

The United States has been trying to get Pakistan's military to crack down on militants in the border area since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the country's past nurturing of militants to use as proxies in Afghanistan and Pakistan has complicated those efforts.

The Swat offensive began after militants there violated a peace deal with the government and moved into regions close to the capital, Islamabad. The army claims to have nearly cleared the valley of insurgents, killing more than 1,500.

Abbas told a news conference Wednesday that according to "credible information," the leader of the Swat Taliban, Maulana Fazlullah, was wounded in a recent airstrike. Fazlullah's capture or killing would be a major symbolic victory for the army and could ease the fears of some 2 million residents who fled the valley and surrounding districts and have yet to return.


6a) British Colonel Declares: The IDF Did More to Safeguard Civilians Than Any Other Army
International Law and Military Operations in Practice
By Col. Richard Kemp -

[Watch the Video]
www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/showpage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=701&FID=765&PID=0
[Read the Full Transcript]
www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026&TTL=International_Law_and_Military_Operations_in_Practice

Former commander of British forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp told a
conference in Jerusalem on June 18, 2009:

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

The battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion and chaos, of
fast-moving action. In the type of conflict that the Israeli Defense Forces
recently fought in Gaza and in Lebanon, and Britain and America are still
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these age-old confusions and complexities
are made one hundred times worse by the fighting policies and techniques of
the enemy.

Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict
carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli
commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of
engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they
view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is
built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by
the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating
consistently outside international law.

Civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups, in
deliberate and flagrant violation of international laws or reasonable norms
of civilized behavior. Protected buildings, mosques, schools, and hospitals
are used as strongholds. Legal and proportional responses by a Western army
will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce
international outcry and condemnation.

Hamas' military capability was deliberately positioned behind the human
shield of the civilian population. They also ordered, forced when necessary,
men, women and children from their own population to stay put in places they
knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Israel was fighting an enemy that
is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people, deliberately trying to
lure you into killing their own innocent civilians.

And Hamas, like Hizbullah, is also highly expert at driving the media
agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning
Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting
incidents.

When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave
areas targeted for attack. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the
population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. The
IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic
to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to
fight.

Many attack helicopter missions that could have taken out Hamas military
capability were cancelled if there was too great a risk of civilian
casualties in the area. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of
humanitarian aid into Gaza, even though delivering aid virtually into your
enemy's hands is to the military tactician normally quite unthinkable.

By taking these actions the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of
civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

6b) Israel on Trial:The U.N. begins its kangaroo "investigation" of Israeli “war crimes.”
By Alan M. Dershowitz


Just as Spain’s National Court decided to shelve a phony war crime investigation of a 2002 Israeli air strike in Gaza, a group of lawyers and military experts assigned by the United Nations Human Rights Council continued its phony investigation of “the grave violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip.”

Top of Form

The UN Human Rights Council is a scandal. It’s a successor to the defunct UN Human Rights Commission. Both organizations have a long history of singling out Israel for condemnation and of ignoring real human rights abusers by the world’s worst offenders, several of which dominate the Human Rights Council and it predecessor.

As Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky recently noted: “The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined…. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel , the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan , female slavery in Saudi Arabia , or torture in Egypt .”

The very mandate that authorized the Gaza investigation reveals its bias against Israel . The council has already concluded, without any pretense an investigation, that Israel is guilty of “grave violations of human rights…due to its…military attacks.”

It has also concluded that the Gaza Strip “remains occupied,” despite Israel having ended its occupation and having removed every single soldier and settler in 2005. Moreover, the Council’s current president has limited the scope of the investigation to “violations committed in the context of the conflict that took place between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009.” Those are the dates of the Israeli response to more than seven years of rocket attacks by terrorists operating behind human shields in Gaza . During the period prior to 27 December 2008, Hamas and its terrorist allies fired thousands of rockets and mortar shells into civilian areas of Israel , killing, maiming and traumatizing Israeli women, men and children. But these attacks that provoked Israel ’s self-defense military actions, are excluded from the investigation, according to the mandate and its interpretation by the president of the council. It would be as if they UN convened an investigation of the United States and terrorism but limited the investigation only to actions taken after September 12, 2001.

The very idea of the UN Council conducting an “independent” or objective investigation Israel is preposterous. It would be as if an all white Mississippi court were investigating a black man’s self-defense in response to years of lynchings by whites and limiting its investigation to the event following the lynchings. There is simply no way of an investigation conducted under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council and be fair. Its history of bias and bigotry should not be legitimated by men and women of decency who care about real human rights.

That is why it was so surprising and disturbing to see a good man like Richard Goldstone agree to head the investigation team appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Goldstone is a South African who fought against Apartheid and led an important investigation into the causes of violence there, ultimately blaming the government itself for instigating violence through a “third force.” Would he have succeeded if his commission had been limited to white members only, and if its mandate of his investigation was limited to the black violence and excluded the white violence that provoked it? Would he have been willing to lend his good name to legitimate the bad history of all white Apartheid courts? What if he were a black lawyer, deliberately selected by the all white court to be an “Uncle Tom” precisely because he was black?

Goldstone was selected to head this investigation precisely because he is Jewish. Let there be no mistake about that cynical reality. I don’t blame the UN Council for selecting a Jew to legitimiate its kangaroo investigation of the Jewish state, but I wonder why a man like Goldstone would allow himself to be used in this manner. Does he not realize how he is being played? How his distinguished reputation is being exploited in the interest of bigotry? Oh yes, Goldstone will be “even-handed”. That is precisely what the Council wants: equivalent condemnation of Israel and Hamas for unequivalent actions.

Hamas admits—indeed boasts—that it has committed multiple war crimes: first it boasts about firing rockets at Israeli school children; it fires its rockets primarily at times when Israeli children are on their way to and from school; it has hit several kindergartens, elementary schools and playgrounds (fortunately, the children had been sent home); it celebrates every civilian death and injury it causes. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

Second, Hamas boasts of hiding behind human shields, which is also a war crime. A prominent Hamas legislator has boasted of the fact that Hamas:

“…[has] formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Third, since Hamas is the elected government of Gaza , every rocket attack from Gaza is a violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which authorizes member nations to defend itself against “armed attack.”

Fourth, these attacks are part of a long term strategy to destroy a member nation of the United Nations, as the Hamas charter clearly proclaims.

No “investigation” is needed to conclude that Hamas engaged in war crimes.

Israel , on the other hand, is engaged in legitimate self defense: as a leading British expert, Richard Kemp put it on the BBC during the Gaza War:

"I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce the civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza .”

To be even-handed in the face of such uneven conduct, or to find moral equivalence where there is none, would be the worst sort of immoral bigotry. Yet moral and legal equivalence is precisely what this investigatory commission will “find,” following its “independent fact-finding mission,” unless it finds that Israel ’s conduct was worse than Hamas’s because more people died from Israeli fire than from Hamas rockets. The investigators will ignore the law that holds murderers who hide behind human shields responsible for the deaths of these human shields, even when the bullets that killed them came from the weapons of those who engaged in legitimate self-defense. Consider the analogous situation of the Navy SEALs who killed the Somali pirates that had kidnapped American merchant captain Richard Phillips. Similar rescue attempts have sometimes resulted in the tragic deaths of the hostages. Would it be fair to try the SEALs for murder, instead of the pirates? That is exactly what the Gaza commission aims to do to Israel . It will also ignore the fact that Hamas always exaggerates the number of civilians killed by including in that category armed police (who double as terrorists), “civilians” who willing serve as human shields or who willingly allow their homes to be used to manufacture, store or fire rockets, “children” and “women” who have become terrorists, and even “collaborators” killed by Hamas.

Goldstone will try his best to be even-handed. But he knows that unless his report condemns Israel , at least as forcefully as it condemns Hamas, it will never be accepted by the UN Human Rights Council and his work will come to naught. He is an experienced international diplomat. He knows who appointed him. He understands his mandate. He will try to expand it to include Hamas war crimes, so as to be “even-handed,” even though Hamas already boasts of its crimes.

Israel too knows this. They know Goldstone. They know that his appointment was calculated to make it difficult for Israel to refuse to cooperate with a Jewish investigator who has had close ties with the Jewish state. Their refusal to cooperate with this distinguished group of investigators, they will be seen by some as afraid of the “truth.” Had they cooperated, they know that “the truth” produced by this investigation will be a lie. They are in a no-win situation, precisely because Richard Goldstone accepted an appointment he should never have agreed to accept.

Israel should conduct its own thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may.

Richard Goldstone should resign in protest if the Human Rights Council finds moral or legal equivalence between the multiple war crimes deliberately committed by a terrorist and the inadvertent deaths caused by the use of human shields to protect terrorists from legitimate self-defense actions taken by a democracy to protect its citizens.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. He is the author of many books, including, most recently, “The Case Against Israel’s Enemies.”




7) Democrats stuck in stimulus jam
By Victoria McGrane


President Barack Obama says there’s “nothing” he “would have done differently” about his economic stimulus plan, but one of his top outside economic advisers says the plan was “a bit too small.”

Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri says the idea of a second stimulus is a “non-starter,” but Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island says it “should be on the table.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says there’s “no showing that a second stimulus is needed,” but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says Congress needs to be “open to whether we need additional action.”

Democrats are all over the map on the stimulus and the possibility of a sequel, and it’s not hard to see why: When it comes to a second stimulus, they may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

“Right now, every headline across the board is the stimulus isn’t enough, states are in bankruptcy, states aren’t paying their bills,” says Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist. “This is really deadly for the Democratic Party, because what it suggests is the Democratic Party cannot run the country.”

At the same time, however, polls show that voters have little appetite for a second stimulus, and Democrats fear that any attempt to pass one will provide Republicans too much ammunition to argue that Democrats are profligate spenders who can’t reverse the job-loss trend.

McCaskill says there’s no way to go back to the well.

“If we are trying to move anything on health care and we’re trying to move anything on climate change, then putting another stimulus on top of that is a backbreaker,” she told POLITICO. “It is a political backbreaker — for people from states like mine anyway.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says that Congress has already pumped “trillions” into the economy and that she’s “not sure there’s any magic thing” it can do now “other than what we’ve done before.”

But other Democrats say the economy may need another jolt, regardless of the political risks.

“The thing we have to consider is the risk to not doing it,” said Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.).

With unemployment in his home state of Rhode Island at 12 percent, Whitehouse told POLITICO that it’s too soon to “rule out” another stimulus — a point his Democratic colleague, Sen. Jack Reed, echoed on MSNBC on Tuesday.

Whitehouse rejected the argument already being made by Republicans that passing a second stimulus — or a third, if you count the package signed by President George W. Bush — would be tantamount to admitting the first $700-plus billion package just plain didn’t work.

“It’s like putting out the first half of the fire in the house. If it flares back up again, the firemen ... go back and put more water on it,” he said.

The White House is working to get the money that’s already been approved out the door and into the economy faster. For instance, Vice President Joe Biden’s office launched several weeks ago a 10-part “Roadmap to Recovery” initiative designed to create four times as many jobs in the second 100 days of the stimulus than in the first.

Some economists, including Nobel Prize laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, say the need for additional stimulus measures is already clear.


“To my mind it’s pretty obvious we need another stimulus package, probably a lot bigger than the last one,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It’s horrible that you have all of these people suffering because you have people in Washington with rocks in their head.”

Still others agree with those Democrats who prefer a wait-and-see approach.

“I think it’s premature to conclude that a third stimulus would be needed. The maximum benefit from the current stimulus will occur this summer and fall, and in terms of jobs, not until very late this year,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody’s Economy.com.

“Now if we get into late this year and the economy is not continuing to improve — and it is improving, it’s still in recession but it’s improving — and if we don’t make further progress through the end of the year, then I think it would be reasonable to consider another stimulus.”

But Republicans aren’t waiting to go on the attack.

They’re slamming the White House for predicting that unemployment wouldn’t go above 8 percent if Congress passed the stimulus, pointing out that it has now hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent.

They’re seizing on Democrats’ own statements — such as Biden’s acknowledgment over the weekend that the administration “misread” how bad the economy would get — to make their point.

And they’re already mocking Democrats for even considering a second stimulus, previewing the arguments they’re sure to fire up should Democrats choose that path.

“Down home, we used to say there’s no education in the second kick of a mule,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. “Now, why in the world there would be any conclusion reached after looking at the results of the first stimulus that the way to deal with that is to pass yet another one — [it] is mind-boggling.”

The office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called talk of a second stimulus “a collective acknowledgement that Washington Democrats’ spending binge — which was supposed to create jobs “immediately” — isn’t working.”

Some observers suggest that Congress can take stimulus-esque steps without actually having to pass a politically painful stimulus package. Zandi suggested providing aid to cash-strapped states, delaying tax increases set for 2011 and expanding the housing tax credit.

But Democrats may find themselves limited even on stimulus-lite approaches as Republicans argue that government spending hasn’t worked and won’t do anything but drive up the federal deficit.

“This offers us an opportunity to realign ourselves with middle-class economic anxieties,” said Kevin Madden, who led Mitt Romney’s communication operation for the 2008 presidential campaign. “We have to make a very clear and convincing case to everyday Americans that we’ve tried it the Democrats’ way by pumping money into the public sector, and it hasn’t worked.”

8) The McNamara Mentality
By George Will

The death of Robert McNamara at 93 was less a faint reverberation of a receding era than a reminder that mentalities are the defining attributes of eras, and certain American mentalities recur with, it sometimes seems, metronomic regularity. McNamara came to Washington from a robust Detroit -- he headed Ford when America's swaggering automobile manufacturers enjoyed 90 percent market share -- to be President John Kennedy's secretary of defense. Seemingly confident that managing the competition of nations could be as orderly as managing competition among the three participants in Detroit's oligopoly, McNamara entered government seven months before the birth of the current president, who is the owner and, he is serenely sure, fixer of General Motors.

Today, something unsettlingly similar to McNamara's eerie assuredness pervades the Washington in which he died. The spirit is: Have confidence, everybody, because we have, or soon will have, everything -- really everything -- under control.

The apogee of McNamara's professional life, in the first half of the 1960s, coincided, not coincidentally, with the apogee of the belief that behavioralism had finally made possible a science of politics. Behavioralism held -- holds; it is a hardy perennial -- that the social and natural sciences are not so different, both being devoted to the discovery of law-like regularities that govern the behavior of atoms, hamsters, humans, whatever.

Two of behavioralism's reinforcing assumptions were: Things that can be quantified can be controlled. And everything can be quantified. So, pick a problem, any problem. Military insurgency in Indochina? The answer is counterinsurgency. What can be, and hence must be, quantified? Body counts, surely. Bingo: A metric of success.

Not exactly. The behavior of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong did not respond as expected to America's finely calibrated stimuli, such as bombing this but not that, and bombing pauses. Behavioralists were disappointed, but not discouraged. They would give nation-building another try.

It was in reaction to the mentality that McNamara represented that "The Public Interest" quarterly was born. Its founders were intellectuals, many of whom were called "neoconservatives" when that designation was more relevant to domestic than foreign policy. The journal's mission was to insist that (as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a Harvard social scientist, said) the function of social science is not to tell us what to do but to tell us what does not work. What did not work in the 1960s, at home and abroad, was quite a lot.

McNamara died on a day when there was interesting news from Asia, the region of his torments: There was lethal ethnic rioting in China. That development refutes, redundantly, the prophecy of a 19th-century social scientist, Karl Marx. Believing that he had discerned the laws of social physics, he said that the coming of modernity -- the rise of science and the retreat of religion under the rationality of market societies -- would mean that preindustrial factors such as religion and ethnicity would lose their history-shaping saliency.

So far, the 21st century is vexed by nothing so much as those supposed residues of humanity's infancy. Nevertheless, Marx's anticipation morphed into what Moynihan called "the liberal expectancy." It is the hope -- liberals tend to treat hopes as probabilities -- that the fading of those atavisms and superstitions has put the world on a path to perpetual tranquility.

The world McNamara has departed could soon be convulsed by attempts to modify Iran's behavior. Since a variety of incentives have been unavailing, more muscular measures -- perhaps "surgical strikes," a phrase redolent of the McNamara mentality -- are contemplated.

Some persons fault the president for not having more ambitious plans to somehow prompt and guide Iranians toward regime change. That outcome is sometimes advocated, and its consequences confidently anticipated, by neoconservatives whose certitude about feasibility resembles that which, decades ago, neoconservatism was born to counter.

Well. Every four years we saturate New Hampshire -- that small, English-speaking, culturally homogenous, ethnically temperate sliver of tranquil New England -- with politicians, consultants, journalists and political scientists. And often we are surprised -- even dumbfounded -- by how unpredictably that state's people, with their native perversity, choose to behave in their presidential primary.

McNamara, like many who leave high office, never left the capital of this nation that believes people learn from history, and that therefore history is linear and progressive. But the capital, gripped once again by the audacious hope of mastering everything, would be wise to entertain a shadow of a doubt about that.

9) Are Americans Becoming More Conservative? They Think So, But...
By Marc Ambinder

Are Americans Becoming More Conservative? They Think So, But...
Conservatives trumpet, and liberals pooh-pooh, this latest Gallup survey of American ideological self-assessment. It includes that although Americans say they're becoming more conservative, they're not voting that way, and they're not acting that way. I think George Will's classic saying is relevant here: Americans tend to be temperamental conservatives and operational liberals.

Since the 1970s, there has always been a conservative tilt to voters' self portraits, especially since liberalism is still a discredited word to non-liberals. Perhaps this will change soon, as liberals are reclaiming liberalism (and the word, too), and as the Republican brand implosion over the last five years will trickle over to the word "conservative," too. The survey's results may reflect a difference between aspiration and identity; voters wish they could be more conservative than they are. Or it could reflect the month the poll was taken it: we've been debating the deficit, Obama's approval ratings are slipping, the economy is a mess, etc -- the excitement of the first few months of the new administration have waned a bit. If Gallup had taken the same poll a few months ago, they might have found some differences, which may or may not be significant;I wonder whether these marginal changes in political identity shift from week to week...or, rather, that there are enough Americans who use their reaction to events to determine their ideological identity so as to make it appear as if, when a snapshot is taken, a trend is seen. How can the country be conservative trending if it endorsed Barack Obama's liberal policies? This poll suggests that the answer is: it just... can. Americans seem capable of separating ideology and operation, of judging how one is doing something, rather than what one is actually doing.



The poll also makes clear that the links between conservatism and the Republican Party are fraying. There is no contradiction in noting that the Republican party is weak and yet independents are growing more conservative. Indeed, this argues for a relative stasis in our politics: conservative independents used to identify as Republicans.

10) The Smell of War at Breakfast
By Yulia Latynina

Will Russia launch a war against Georgia? That is the most important question that should have been decided during U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Moscow — or, to be more precise, during Obama’s breakfast meeting on Tuesday with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Everything else was of secondary importance. Compared with the Russia-Georgia conflict, what difference does it make what kind of agreement they reach to reduce strategic nuclear arms? After all, Russia and the United States will never use these weapons against each other anyway.

The pleasantries shared between President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama during their news conference and photo ops were just as meaningless. In the end, Medvedev and Putin will always support regimes that are antagonistic to Washington for one simple reason: to increase international tensions, drive up oil prices and give the Kremlin another chance to bask in its inflated self-image as a global energy superpower.

It was very important that Obama’s visit coincided with Russia’s large-scale military exercises “Caucasus 2009,” which were most likely held in preparation for a new war in the region. And whether or not Russia’s troops will be given the green light does not depend on military considerations, but on whether Putin, after meeting with Obama, believes that he can start a war without incurring repercussions from the West.

“Caucasus 2009” is strikingly similar to the Russian exercises that preceded the August 2008 war with Georgia. The smell of war is once again in the air. Counterterrorism operations have been instituted in the Prielbrusiye region on the Russian-Georgian border, many people have been evacuated from the region and Russia has beefed up its forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Like deja vu, the Kremlin is again accusing Georgia of aggression, and yet it is Moscow that has insisted that all observers from the United Nations and Europe leave the region to remove unnecessary witnesses to Russia’s planned aggression. It would be difficult to label these moves as simply blackmail. Russia is mobilizing for war.

The Kremlin’s foreign policy is driven by one basic principle: It will pursue an aggressive, hostile policy as long as it believes it can get away with it.

The Russian-Georgian war last year was a perfect example. When Georgian forces occupied Tskhinvali, Putin, who always operated on the assumption that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was a puppet of former U.S. President George W. Bush, met with Bush in Beijing while they were attending the Olympic Games there. Bush, who apparently knew nothing about the events in Georgia, muttered something to the effect of “Nobody wants a war.” Putin interpreted these words to mean that Bush was rescinding U.S. support for Georgia. But after French President Nicolas Sarkozy flew to Georgia, this was enough to convince Putin to stop the army’s advance, even though Russian troops had already reached the outskirts of Tbilisi.

The Kremlin’s behavior is driven by both rational and irrational motives. An irrational motive is Putin’s stated desire to hang Saakashvili by the balls. A rational motive is the desire to convince the world that Saakashvili has already hanged himself by the balls.

The outcome of the last Russian-Georgian war was determined when Putin met one-on-one with Bush in Beijing. Similarly, whether or not there will be another Caucasus war will depend on what Putin reads in Obama’s eyes during this summit.

Yulia Latynina hosts a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio.

11) Why China might turn on North Korea: As Beijing strives to become a responsible great power, the costs of staying allied with North Korea may come to surpass the costs of abandoning it.
By Leif-Eric Easley

North Korea's provocations are testing more than weapons and diplomacy. Recent actions by the United Nations, South Korea, Japan, and United States, while well developed and coordinated, are insufficient. An effective international response hinges on how national identity changes in China reshape Beijing's strategic interests toward Pyongyang.

Owing to North Korea's historical relations with and economic dependence on China, analysts argue that Chinese leaders hold the key to solving the "North Korea problem." But the Obama administration understands, as did the Bush administration, that maximizing pressure on Beijing would be counterproductive.

China has long seen its national interests served by the status quo on the Korean Peninsula. According to a cold-war perspective about strategic balance and a post-cold-war emphasis on internal development, Beijing prioritized maintaining a buffer state and preventing North Korea's problems from spilling over China's border. While Beijing retains these priorities, the chances of it getting tough with Pyongyang are low.

However, the China of today is not the China that came to Pyongyang's aid during the Korean War – its national identity has evolved over decades of rapid development and international integration. The ideas of communist solidarity and laying low to focus on modernization are becoming obsolete.

Instead, China covets its traditional role at the center of Asia, entailing not only power, but also respect and responsibility. Such ambition is possible thanks to the success of an economic model that has brought China closer to the US, Japan, and South Korea.

China's growing identity gap with North Korea may be changing the way China views its own interests. Chinese now ask whether Beijing underestimates the costs of a nuclear-armed North Korea and being the largest backer of the Kim regime. There are also questions about whether China overestimates the usefulness of a buffer against US and South Korean forces, the challenge of North Korean refugees, and the probability of international military conflict on the peninsula.

Given the responsible great power China wants to become, the costs of staying allied with North Korea may come to surpass the costs of abandoning it.

The priority for Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo should be to stay on the same page, especially through North Korea's leadership transition. Pyongyang's belligerence provides an opportunity to fundamentally attract Beijing to the allies' position. Nuclear proliferation, illegal arms tests and trade, and holding foreign journalists for ransom are becoming anathemas to Chinese identity.

Zero-sum thinking about political and economic influence on the strategic Korean Peninsula won't suddenly disappear. However, the long-term interests that China shares with Japan, South Korea, and the US will become increasingly apparent.

Pyongyang's provocations are testing how China's changing national identity shapes its strategic interests and ultimately foreign policy. The extent to which Beijing cooperates with Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul hangs in the balance.


• Leif-Eric Easley is a PhD candidate at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and a visiting scholar at the University of Southern California Korean Studies Institute.

12) White House, hospitals reach deal on health care
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The nation's hospitals will give up $155 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments to help defray the cost of President Barack Obama's health care plan, a concession the White House hopes will boost an overhaul effort that's hit a roadblock in Congress.

Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal at the White House on Wednesday, with administration officials and hospital administrators at his side.

"Reform is coming. It is on track; it is coming. We have tried for decades to fix a broken system, and we have never, in my entire tenure in public life, been this close," Biden said. And in a firm message to lawmakers, Biden added, "We must — and we will — enact reform by the end of August."

Obama has set an ambitious timetable for legislation, with the hope of signing a comprehensive bill in October. But lawmakers returned Tuesday from their July 4 break with lots of questions about the complex legislation and deep misgivings about key elements under discussion.

Democratic senators in particular are having second thoughts about a proposed new tax on generous health insurance benefits provided by some employers. Without the tax — Republicans favor it as a brake on cost increases — the prospects for a bipartisan deal in the Senate appear to be in jeopardy.

Timing is critical because lawmakers might be reluctant to vote on such a charged issue as health care next year, when all House members and one-third of senators face elections.

"We're not there yet," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has spent countless hours seeking a compromise with Republican colleagues. "I'm trying the best I can to get there soon."

Another senator deeply involved in the bipartisan negotiations said the proposed new tax on the costliest employer-paid insurance benefits is quickly losing favor with Democrats.

"It's clearly a very difficult issue," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., citing recent polls. "You go to the public to ask them what they think and they don't like it."

A compilation of surveys reviewed by senators showed at least 59 percent of the public opposed to taxing health care benefits to "pay for reform."

As a result, Conrad said, "we're looking at other options" to help finance a bill whose price tag is expected to reach $1 trillion or slightly more. Those other options may be hard to sell to Republicans whose support Baucus has been cultivating.

Baucus has long championed a tax on health benefits as the best way to pay for health care while simultaneously restraining the growth of the cost of coverage in the future. But the idea has drawn strong opposition from organized labor, a core Democratic constituency. House Democrats have been highly resistant, too, and Obama campaigned hard against it in last year's run for the White House.

The deal with the hospitals — the one bright spot right now for Obama — may also be on shaky ground. Officials said it's pegged to the Senate Finance Committee legislation that Baucus is negotiating, and whose prospects are uncertain. It would follow concessions from drug companies, and an announcement by Wal-Mart last week that it would support an employer requirement to help pay for health care.

Of the $155 billion in projected savings from hospitals, about $40 billion to $50 billion would come from reducing federal payments hospitals receive for providing care to uninsured and low-income patients, according to lobbyists. Those payments are now made through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Medicaid cuts would be apportioned by state, as 10 percent annual reductions beginning around 2015.

Officials of public hospitals say they have concerns such reductions could also squeeze funding for trauma centers and burn units, which receive Medicare and Medicaid money. But they wanted to see the fine print.

Other savings of about $100 billion would come from slowing increases in planned Medicare payments to hospitals. A small amount of savings would come from trimming the money hospitals get for preventing patients from being readmitted for additional care.

Hospitals would also get something out of the deal. They won an agreement that if the Finance Committee's legislation includes a public health insurance plan, it would reimburse hospitals at above the rates Medicare and Medicaid pay, which hospitals have long complained are insufficient.

The issue of a government insurance plan to compete against private companies continued to inflame sentiments on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans remain solidly opposed. Democrats, citing polls that show the public is open to the idea, are talking about a showdown on the issue.

Biden was joined at the White House by Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, Richard Bracken, president of Hospital Corporation of America, Wayne Smith, president of Community Health Systems, and Sister Carol Keehan, president of Catholic Health Association of the United States.

"We know how urgently reform is needed, both for moral and economic purposes," said Keehan, who represents Catholic hospitals.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the hospital deal, saying it was negotiated out of public view. "The administration and congressional Democrats are literally bullying health care groups into cutting backroom deals to fund a government takeover of health care," Boehner said in a statement.

13) The Near East Report editors pulled together a few of the many news items that caught their attention—stories about Israeli innovation in medicine, agriculture, environmentalism, computer technology, space exploration and much more. Click the links in each summary to view the full story. Here is a brief round-up:

An Israeli Muslim woman, Dr. Suheir Assady, was recently appointed as the new head of the Nephrology Department at Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa. To date, Dr. Assady is the first Israeli Muslim woman directing a large medical department in an Israeli hospital. There are only a few women holding similar positions in the entire Middle East.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has launched its first Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in its Vision for Space Exploration, using technology that was developed by an Israeli company.

A new recycling program in Arad could not only boost the town’s depressed status, but also provide a green model for the rest of Israel, and even the Middle East. A team of researchers from the University of Haifa have stumbled upon a rare desert plant living in Israel’s mountainous Negev desert, which can irrigate itself. Israeli aviation giant IAI is playing a key role in a major European Union initiative designed to green our skies.

An Israeli company has developed a new meter that can monitor milk production in real time, enabling dairy farmers to keep immediate track of a number of critical parameters.

Prescription drugs mixed inadvertently with over the counter medications can be a lethal cocktail hospitalizing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Now an Israel company has the solution.

Imagine if you could get one flu shot that would last for three to five years, and protect you from all the different strains of flu around the world. That’s exactly what Israeli company BiondVax Pharmaceuticals is developing.

An Israeli-American research team has stumbled onto a new and interesting find—a non-radiation based therapy that may provide relief for an aggressive and hard to treat breast cancer cell known as HER2+, but which could also have wider applications for treating all kinds of cancer.

It can be tricky trying to figure out who everyone is in your Facebook photo albums, but now an Israeli company has come up with a solution—a unique face recognition technology that can analyze and identify people in your online photos, and even connect you with them on the web.

Settlements Cause Global Warming!

Are we witnessing good cop, bad cop foreign policy? We can tell Israelis where to live but we can't tell them not to attack Iran?

In the last week a host of events have occured - an Israeli sub with nuclear armed weapon capability has surfaced off India, rumored the Saudis have granted Israel fly over rights, the Israeli Ambassador acknowledged Iran could wipe Israel out with one nuclear launch and the list does not stop there.

Is this simply a host of meaningless warnings or are these a series of intended prelude warnings about something more serious to come? (See 1 below.)

Plan B? and Iran responds. (See 1a and 1b below.)

Needed change in cutting health care waste as a result of defensive medicine. (See 2 below.)
And if we are going to save the world, lets do it all the way! (See 2a below.)

Maureen Dowd extracts her Palin pound of flesh so as not to be outdone by Atlantic Magazine.

We now have two national politicians who, according to Dowd's view, would seem narcissistic -Palin and Obama. And then there is another view.(See 3 and 3a below.)

Orator or demagogue? You decide. (See 4 below.)

Lieberman has become Israel's Palin? (See 5 below.)

EC has a new theory - Palestinian dependency is because of Israeli settlements. Soon global warming will be attributed to the settlements. (See 6 below.)

Melanie Phillips responds to Dershowitz' article, which I previously posted, and says he does not get it. I alluded to the same thought - in order to stick to his liberal roots Dershowitz had to make all kind of tortuous theoretical adjustments. (See 7 below.)

Obama has a plan according to Fred Hiatt but it is not change - politicians have been doing it since politicians were first born. (See 8 below.)

Dick


1)Biden: US will not stand in Israel's way on Iranian issue


The US will not stand in Israel's way if Israel believes military action is needed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday, during an interview with ABC's 'This Week.'

Biden opined that the US "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."

Speaking to interviewer George Stephanopolous during a three-day visit to Iraq, the US vice president said that Israel can determine for itself "what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."

When questioned if Israel could make that decision "whether [the US] agrees or not," Biden answered in the affirmative, noting, "Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that."

He went on to say that the interests of the US are also the interests of Israel and "the whole world."

"If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," he added.

When pushed to comment on whether or not the US would grant "over-fly rights … in Iraq," Biden responded, "I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests."

The Israeli government had no immediate comment on Biden's remarks, but said a statement might come later.

On the issue of recent North Korean test-fires, which have coincided with US Memorial Day commemorations and Fourth of July celebrations, Biden backed his country's current policy, saying, "We have succeeded in uniting the most important and critical countries to North Korea on a common path of further isolating North Korea."

He also spoke of US President Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq, stressing
that the main aim was to "leave behind a stable and secure country."

He reiterated that by 2011, all US troops will be out of Iraq, by which point Iraqis will be "fully capable of maintaining their own security."

Speaking to CBS News political analyst John Dickerson on 'Face the Nation,' on Sunday meanwhile, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen evaluated that both a US strike on Iran, and the Islamic republic attaining nuclear weapons would be "very destabilizing."

He said called both situations "really, really bad outcomes," and urged appropriate actions to prevent either eventuality.

Mullen said that the US has a "very narrow window" of options which would be appropriate to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

1a) Israel seeks 'Plan B' if U.S.-Iran talks fail
By Barak Ravid

Israel is urging the United States and other countries to start preparing now for the possibility that Washington's proposed dialogue with Iran will fail, by readying a "Plan B" that includes "paralyzing sanctions" and other measures against Tehran.

The U.S. has resisted this idea so far.

The Israeli messages - sent against the background of the recent unrest in Iran - have been delivered to the White House, the State Department and senior officials in the U.S. intelligence community by senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry. Similar messages have been sent to senior officials in Germany, Russia, France and Japan.
Advertisement

Israel's argument is that if the Americans are indeed committed to imposing "paralyzing sanctions" on Iran should the dialogue fail - as both U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have said in the past - the work of drafting these sanctions must begin now.

"Israel is adjusting its messages to the new circumstances created by the unrest in Iran," a senior government official said. "These things must be stated clearly now so that there is no confusion about our position."

Before the protests in Iran began, the official explained, Israel's assessment was that the planned American-Iranian dialogue had little chance of succeeding. But in light of the protests, and the need of Iranian hard-liners to shore up their rule, Israel's intelligence community believes the chances of the dialogue even beginning, much less succeeding, are near zero.

"In the situation that has arisen following the protests in Iran, there is much greater international readiness for harsh steps against the regime in Tehran," the official noted.

However, Washington has so far rejected the "Plan B" idea.

American officials involved in the Iranian issue have told their Israeli counterparts that they are aware of the frustration in Israel, Europe and the Gulf states over Washington's insistence on going ahead with the dialogue with Iran, and that they also do not believe the chances of success are high.

Nevertheless, they said, were the U.S. to start laying the groundwork for stiffer sanctions now, this would signal to the Iranians that Obama is not serious about dialogue with Tehran, which would foil any chances of success that the dialogue might have.

This exchange of messages has a positive side: The two countries have at least resumed serious conversation on the Iranian issue, after a hiatus of almost six months.

On the negative side, however, Israel's concern about Washington's lack of alternative plan should the dialogue fail remains unassuaged. Germany, Britain and France are all thought to share this concern.

Israeli officials dealing with the Iranian issue said cooperation with Germany, Britain and France has been very fruitful, and that the three European powers have been working with Israel to achieve two goals: getting the U.S. to assess the progress of the dialogue with Iran during the UN General Assembly meeting in September, rather than waiting another few months, and securing publication of the military appendix to the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran due to be submitted in September.

Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday that Israel will decide for itself whether to attack Iran.

In an interview with ABC television, Biden said: "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else. Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that."

Biden insisted that pressure from Israel or other countries would not affect American's planned dialogue with Iran. "There is no pressure from any nation that is going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed," he said, adding that Washington believes this dialogue serves America's interests, as well as those of Israel and the rest of the world.

But "if the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that," he continued. "That is not our choice."

The U.S., he stressed, "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."

1b) 'Iran's response will be real, decisive'

Iran is ready to take "real and decisive" action if Israel attacks its nuclear facilities, a senior Iranian parliamentary official said Monday.

The remarks by Alaeddin Broujerdi, the head of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, came after US Vice President Joe Biden signaled that Washington would not try to prevent any such Israeli assault.

"Both the US and Israel are aware of the consequence of an erroneous decision," Broujerdi told reporters at the Iranian Embassy in Tokyo.

"I believe our response will be real and decisive," Broujerdi said. He declined to elaborate.

Biden was asked on ABC's This Week whether the US would stand in the way militarily if the Israelis decided they needed to take out Iran's nuclear program.

"Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday, thus seeming to give Israel a green light for military action to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat

Broujerdi also defended a recent crackdown on protesters following Iran's presidential election, saying that Iranian police had merely acted to restore order, and accusing Mousavi of instigating the protests.

"There is no confusion. It is (now) a totally peaceful situation in Iran," he said. Broujerdi is currently visiting Japan as chairman of the Iran-Japan Parliamentary Friendship League.




2) Obama Plan Calls for Making the Health Care System More Efficient by Having Trial Lawyers Provide Medical Services More Directly


Last week, President Obama gave a speech to the American Medical Association in which he made clear that while frivolous lawsuits are major drivers of excessive health care costs, he would oppose any efforts to restrict potentially unlimited “jackpot” damage awards.

Yesterday, Obama addressed another group, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and further defined his plan to reform the health care system.

“We all know the threat of bankrupting lawsuits in our ‘jackpot justice’ system causes doctors to engage in wasteful ‘defensive medicine’ in which they prescribe drugs and order extra medical tests that aren’t necessary in order to reduce their risks of liability,” said the President. “That’s why I’m proposing that medical services and operations be performed right in the courtroom, where lawyers can provide advice to doctors and patients in real-time, limiting litigation transaction costs.”

Obama said his plan would free up hospital beds and produce savings that could be used to help cover the high costs of defensive medicine.

“Under my plan,” said Obama, “medical records could be accessed instantly by both doctors and lawyers for both sides in the inevitable litigation,” avoiding duplication costs. “And already-empaneled juries could immediately render verdicts that reflect the emotions of the moment following an adverse health event, regardless of any fault on the part of the doctor.”

Administration officials added that trial lawyers could collect their one-third contingency fees from damage awards right there in the courtroom, while doctors would only have to walk a short distance to bankruptcy court down the hall.

“It’s time to put the ‘Doctor’ back in ‘Juris Doctor’,” said Obama, concluding his remarks to thunderous applause.

2a) Let's cap and trade oxygen!
By James Lewis

Enough already with carbon cap and trade. I say let's cap oxygen, and then tax any family that can't achieve the Average Family Oxygen Target of 80% BOOTS (Before Obama Oxygen Trading Scheme). Remember, if you weren't inhaling all that O2 you wouldn't be belching out clouds of noxious CO2. Yuck. Yes, I know oil refineries smell bad and coal looks dirty. But none of that carbon would ever see the light of day if it weren't for all the oxygen you suck in, you greed bucket. So let's get down to root causes.


Here's the goal. If we can only get five billion people around the world to breathe 20% less oxygen per person, we would Save the Planet from Global Warming. Just like that!


Twenty percent less O2 going into your body means 20% less CO2 out-gassing, atom-for-atom. It's just like cutting down the world population by a billion polluting oxygen hogs.


Capping oxygen is actually the hardest part. Once you learn to cut down your intake, we just set up a market to trade official credits for the unbreathed O2 that you could have inhaled but didn't. Let's assume for the sake of planetary computer modeling that you can personally cut down your breathing by 20%. Try it! Just hold your nose and breathe through a straw. And when you get that strangled feeling, just remember you're Saving the Planet. Lay back and think of Paul Krugman.


Did you ever want to lose weight? This is the ecologically responsible way to do it. It's the Oxygen Sparing Diet. If you breathe just one-fifth less oxygen you'll be eating one-fifth less food, because your body uses all that oxygen to metabolize your French fries and fat-burgers. The benefits are out of this world.


Now here's the free market angle. Congress can pass a law stating that if you achieve more than the mandated National O2 Reduction of 20% you will receive an official US Government Oxygen Trading Credit for all the oxygen you did not breathe beyond 20%. It's like price supports for farmers, except that everybody can play. For instance, if you cut your O2 down by 25% you receive a 5% Oxygen Trading Credit, to sell to your huffing and puffing neighbors on a free market basis. If you breathe 30% less, you get a 10% OTC. It's supply and demand!


Or consider this option: For the average family of five --- two adults, two kids and a dog --- just get rid of a family member. You can start by getting rid of your dog. Do you have any idea how much oxygen a running dog breathes? Do your Planet a favor, please. And once you get the hang of it...


Even cars breathe oxygen to burn gasoline. Cut your driving by 20% --- after all, you won't need to drive now that you're breathing less --- and not only will you cut carbon pollution, but you can slice even more off your greedy Oxygen Excess. And don't forget that you can sell all your Oxygen Trading Credits to your O2-hogging neighbors.


Once you get used to cutting down your O2 you'll like yourself a lot better. The Planet will thank you. So will your neighbors.


Try it if you don't believe it. Breathe in just a little bit less every single day, until you're down 10%, then 15%, 20% ... and more? You could actually build your income from the Oxygen Trading Credits if you manage to cut down by 30% or even 40%. Just breathe through that straw and hold your nose.


Remember, Oxygen is Poison!


3) Now, Sarah’s Folly
By MAUREEN DOWD


Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.
Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.

Usually we don’t find that exquisite battiness in our leaders until they’ve been battered by sordid scandals like Watergate (Nixon), gnawing problems like Vietnam (L.B.J.), or scary threats like biological terrorism (Cheney).

When Lyndon Johnson was president, some of his staff began to think of him as “a sick man,” as Bill Moyers told Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Moyers and his fellow Johnson aide Dick Goodwin even began reading up on mental illness — Bill on manic depression and Dick on paranoia.

And so it was, Todd Purdum learned, as he traveled Alaska reporting on Palin for Vanity Fair, that the governor’s erratic and egoistic behavior has been a source of concern for people there. “Several told me, independently of one another,” Purdum writes, “that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’ — and thought it fit her perfectly.”
The White House can drive its inhabitants loopy. So at least Sarah Palin is ahead of the curve on that one.

As Alaskans settled in to enjoy holiday salmon bakes and the post-solstice thaw, their governor had a solipsistic meltdown so strange it made Sparky Sanford look like a model of stability.

On the shore of Lake Lucille, with wild fowl honking and the First Dude smiling, with Piper in the foreground and their Piper Cub in the background, the woman who took the Republican Party by storm only 10 months ago gave an incoherent, breathless and prickly stream of consciousness to a small group in her Wasilla yard. Gobsmacked Alaska politicians, Republican big shots, the national press, her brother, the D.C. lawyer who helped create her political action committee and yes, even Fox News, played catch-up.

What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.
She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.

Maybe there’s another red Naughty Monkey high heel to drop — there’s often a hidden twist in Sarah’s country-music melodramas. Or is this a reckless high-speed escape from small-pond Alaska, where her popularity is dropping, to the big time Below?

Even some conservative analysts admitted that the governor’s move seemed ga-ga before venturing the spin that Palin might be “crazy like a fox,” as Sarah’s original cheerleader, Bill Kristol, put it.Maybe, Kristol mused, she could use the 18 months she would have spent finishing her term to write her book and study up on the issues for 2012.
Why not? Palin/Sanford in 2012, with the slogan: “Save time — we’re already in Crazy Town.”
Palin’s speech is classic casuistry.

After girlish burbling about how “progressing our state” and serving Alaska “is the greatest honor that I could imagine,” and raving about how much she loves her job, she abruptly announced that she was making the ultimate sacrifice: dumping the state on her lieutenant.
Why “milk it,” as she put it, when you can quit it? “Only dead fish go with the flow,” she said, while cold fish can blow out of town. Leaving Alaska in the lurch is best for Alaska. She can better “effect change” in government from outside government. She can fulfill her promise of “efficiencies and effectiveness” by deserting Juneau midway through her term — and taking her tanning bed with her.

“We need those who will respect our Constitution,” said Palin, who swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. She said she can’t fulfill that silly old oath of office in the usual way because she’s not “wired to operate under the same old politics as usual.”
Naturally, she dragged the troops in, saying that her trip to see wounded soldiers overseas “fortified” her decision to give up because “they don’t give up.”
She refuses to succumb to the “politics of personal destruction.” It’s no fun unless she’s the one aiming those poison darts, as she did when she accused Barack Obama of associating “with terrorists who targeted their own country.”


Sometimes, she explained, if you’re the star, you have to “call an audible and pass the ball” and leave at halftime, “so the team can win” somehow without you.
The maverick must run free when greener pastures beckon. The musher must jump out of the dogsled when warmer climes call. As Palin’s spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton, says, “The world is literally her oyster.”

But just remember, beloved Alaska, it’s all about you.

3a) Sarah Palin: The Best is Yet to Come
By J.R. Dunn

The response to Sarah Palin's surprise resignation last Friday clearly reveals the limitations of the American political class, right, left, or what have you.


There's an old academic joke, probably apocryphal, about Count Metternich, Austria's foreign minister during the Napoleonic era. While attending the Congress of Vienna, Metternich is sleeping off a banquet when one of his aides bursts in at three in the morning. "Your excellency! Count Nesselrode, the Russian ambassador, just died."


Metternich jerks awake. "Died, you say? What a terrible thing! I was speaking to him only tonight... Uhh... send a message to the Tsar -- Austria regrets, and so forth..."


The aide leaves. Metternich gets up and paces the floor. After a moment he stops and rubs his chin. "So... Why did Nesselrode decide to do that now..."


We're seeing the same thing today. Obsessive figures confronted with a simple human contingency and, unable to comprehend what's right in front of their eyes, retreating instead into irrelevant speculation about whatever they know best. Simply put, in resigning her governorship and stepping away from active politics, Sarah Palin is not pulling any tricks, carrying out any maneuvers, or putting in motion any long-range plans. She is doing exactly what any normal, rational, un-driven human being would do under the same circumstances.


What are those circumstances? Consider her situation at the moment. By which we mean, her situation. Not the country's situation, not the GOP's situation, not the political situation in any sense at all.


Her eldest son is serving in the military, in the war zone, at a particularly dangerous and violent moment, when the U.S. is transferring responsibility to the new and still untried Iraqi army.


Her eldest daughter is dealing with the twin burdens of a failed marriage and single motherhood, while also serving as a national joke for the same type of people who insisted that Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls are off limits. This is a state of affairs that undoubtedly requires much in the way of TLC from Palin.


Her youngest daughter has recently come under the gun thanks to that epitome of class, David Letterman. All excuses aside, the A-Rod joke was a transparent attempt at seeing if it was now safe to go after Willow, the rest of the Palin family having been run through the mill one after the other. It occurred at an awkward age for a girl, when events such as this can leave a serious mark. Another instance where mom must be available.


And lastly, Palin has a disabled infant child, one who has already been victimized by the left-wing blogosphere and the mass media. Downs children are very high-functioning. It's easily possible for Trig to have a golden life as long as close attention is paid to his upbringing and education. His mother will be the crucial figure here.


So what does a woman do under such circumstances? A real woman, not a pol in a skirt. A wife and a mother, someone with a clear hierarchy of values. Why, she steps out. She removes herself from the firing line. Returns to what matters. She retreats from the public world for the verities of family and community.


There's nothing difficult to understand here. All the comments we've heard from the mass media, from the political experts, and from the operatives, merely reveal the limitations of the commentators.


But what about her greater obligations? To that of conservatism as a movement, for instance? It happens to have been the movement conservatives -- at least those of the Northeast Corridor, who on the basis of tradition consider themselves to be the core of the movement -- who led the charge against Palin on her selection as vice-presidential candidate. Not the left. Not the mass media. But conservatives (I won't add quotes -- not yet, anyway) such as Frum, Parker, and Brooks, who found her to be just the slightest touch déclassé. She did not understand the Modern Dance. Her taste in claret was undependable. Her reading of the Federalist No. 63 was, shall we say, idiosyncratic? These people have no call on her whatsoever.


And the GOP? Doesn't she owe her party anything? Just a few short days after her youngest daughter was humiliated on one of the most widely-watched late-night shows in the country, an obvious hit piece appeared in that balanced journal of the higher intellect, Vanity Fair, in which certain unnamed GOP officials revealed the true Sarah Palin: Sarah as Michael Jackson, Sarah the narcissist, who lived in a dream world and was overwhelmed by "demons". The fact that GOP figures would cooperate with a rag like Vanity Fair in the first place puts a period to any talk of a party connection. The GOP obviously has an agenda. It is not Sarah Palin's agenda. Nor, more than likely, ours either.


And what about Alaska? Palin is one of the outstanding governors of our time, possibly surpassed only by Rick Perry, infinitely superior to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Granholm, or Mitt Romney, to mention only a few members of a large crowd. She went a long way toward cleaning up the Anchorage cesspool, wound up the negotiations for a gas pipeline that had been languishing for decades, and put her state on the national radar screen for the first time since 1958. But her usefulness as governor was probably drawing to an end. If she were to show interest in a 2012 run, she could depend on Obama's crew doing everything possible to drag her down -- and going through her state to do it.


Chicago would put Alaska through the grinder, a very easy thing to accomplish from Washington. In fact, it could be argued that this campaign has already begun, with the slow death-by-cuts action against the National Missile Defense center at Fort Greeley. Even as the ballistic missile threat from North Korea and Iran grows more urgent, Obama is dismantling the sole serious defense against it. (Am I implying that O would jeopardize the country's safety to assure his political career? Well, what do you think?) In a real sense, Palin's resignation at this time can be viewed as yet another service to her state.


So Sarah Palin has left the stage, for perfectly justifiable reasons, and taken her family with her. The mob still waits, unfamiliar with normal behavior from a public figure, eager for more cheap laughs. But there will be no encore. Not right away.


She will be back. Not for 2012. The GOP has its plans already worked out. Very clever ones, too. The Republicans will do what they always do when they're up against it: grab an empty suit and run around shaking it in people's faces while shouting, "Here's the man!" By 2012, after his policies really hit home, as gas and home fuel prices triple and quadruple, as medical rationing begins, as the renewed Axis of Evil runs wild across Eurasia, Obama will be ready to drop. At that point he could be defeated by a ticket consisting of Charley Manson and Jojo the Dogface Boy. But the GOP will blow it all the same. Exactly as the party did in '96, following the same script to the letter. They will, to coin a phrase, Mitt it up.


That moment will mark the start of a new phase for Sarah Palin. The exquisite branch of conservatism will drift away, assuring each other that "It's still possible to live well in a dying civilization." The GOP operatives will, as always, be blaming the "legacy of Reagan" and looking for a RINO who can somehow fool the backwoods rubes. Obama will spend his entire second term racing back and forth trying to put out forest fires using buckets with holes in them. Palin's enemies will have destroyed themselves, and her moment will come at last.


Democracies never stop halfway, no matter what it is: good or bad, intelligent or stupid, harmful or beneficial, they have to go the whole route before at last changing course. The U.S. could not abandon Great Society liberalism in 1976, it had to wait until 1980. The UK could not put aside postwar Labour policies until they were ground down to the last (the Brits went so far as to elect Harold Wilson to two nonconsecutive terms -- something similar to re-electing Jimmy Carter in 1984. Talk about desperation moves!)


While that process unfolded, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan served long apprenticeships, learning all they had to know. Sarah Palin is embarking on the same course now.


Sarah Palin is not ready, they insist. It's just as apt to say that we -- the GOP, the conservative establishment, the country -- are not ready for her. An electorate will always fall for the professional pol, slick, convincing, and empty, before turning in desperation to the truly human candidate. But the time will come.


In a few years her children will be settled, she will no longer have hostages to fortune, and the laughter will have long died away. That is when the lady will start shuffling the cards. We will all have further opportunity to wonder what Sarah Palin is up to.

J.R. Dunn is contributing editor of American Thinker.


4) Obama's Demagoguery
By Vel Nirtist

"Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will..."

- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Book Tree, Chapter X, "The Voice of Saruman"
It has always been assumed that we humans are rational creatures, and can therefore be swayed only by a rational argument -- that is, an argument firmly rooted in facts, utilizing solid logic to link those facts to the conclusion. And I think this is still the case. Rhetoric, oratory, and demagoguery -- these dramatic tricks of presentation -- will carry you only so far, but will cost you and your enthusiasts dearly if the facts you are relying on in your well-crafted speeches are not really facts, or if logic is lost in the gorgeous flow of words. Hitler -- an orator second to none, but given too much to seeing differences amongst human "races" where there were none -- caused Germany plenty of grief.


Today, the best political orations come out of the change-bent America. Our president keeps the world, and a huge number of Americans, enthralled by his superb oratorical skills. His address to the Moslems sent more than one writer of newspaper editorials to swoon in sweet ecstasy; his pronouncements explaining America's strategic inaction vis-à-vis Iranians battling their clerical overlords, or regarding the threat from the North Korea, are being lauded by the press as precious examples of thoughtful statesmanship, of wise self-restraint.


But are Obama's pronouncements indeed solid pieces of political wisdom, or just tricks of a glib tongue? Does he see better and farther the rest of us, or is his leadership but a case of the blind leading the blind? Is he a first-rate statesman, or a mere top-class demagogue?


The link between words "Obama" and "demagoguery" popped in my mind in a rather round-about way, while reading the recent news item called "Report: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit". The title sounded more than a little counter-intuitive, not to say bizarre, given our previous experience of the US being in the vanguard of attempts to slow down Iran's drive toward the bomb, and appealing to other nations to implement sanctions. America found but little support from the likes of Austria and Germany who were too eager to grow their economy by trading with Iran to notice that that very same trade supports Iran's nuclear effort -- which in the long run will turn against them.


So why the sudden role reversal? Why this change of heart on the part of the US administration? Why the decision to oppose the gradually emerging "general leaning [among G8 leaders] ...toward sanctions"? Why putting a brake on the outburst of sanity from the previously reluctant allies? What is going on here? The article explained it thus:


"American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members."


Well, isn't that the continuation of the policy of playing it safe in not vocally (or materially) supporting Iranian's "election" protests? Remember Obama's "strongest" reaction?


"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days... I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost...The United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society."


Being appalled by unjust actions and bearing witness to them are of course all fine and good and laudable -- but are passive activities with rather limited practical outcome for those actually subjected to the actions being witnessed. Notorious Nuremberg Laws which deprived Jews of German citizenship and severely curtailed their rights were enacted in 1935, years before the enactment of the "final solution." One suspects that at the time the world at large was dutifully "appalled and outraged" by them and that many leaders "condemned these unjust actions," and "bore witness" to them. Yet those condemning and bearing witness did not help one bit in preventing sellout of Czechoslovakia and the start of World War II with its attending horrors of mass murder and the Holocaust. Iran's mullahs are clearly as little deterred from proceeding as they wish by Obama's words as were the Nazis back in 1935, and it is highly unlikely that Obama and his advisors are so lacking in common sense that they think otherwise. So, President's reaction at its strongest was, deliberately, but a token one. Why?


The President himself provided an answer:


"The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for -- those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States."


In other words, Obama is so afraid that ayatollahs will present the protestors as American agents and thus whip up the hate of America, that he is perfectly willing to leave them to the gentle mercies of the regime. While fearing Iranian demagoguery, Obama employs the same tactic by demagoguing the Iran issue himself.


This piece of outright demagoguery is not the first foray by our President into the fine art of, as H. L. Mencken put it when describing a generic demagogue, "preach[ing] doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."


His celebrated address to the Moslem world (which was so much advertised in advance and so deeply infused with America's desperate desire to get into good graces of Moslems that it may well have given the ayatollahs an idea that there was nothing to fear from America no matter what) was itself a grand piece of demagoguery, with all its hallmarks in place: inconvenient facts omitted, supporting facts blown out of proportion, friends disparaged, adversaries patted on the back, and the whole package couched in smoothly flowing words delivered in a steady, powerful, confident voice.


Or another, though related, sample of Obama's skill in demagoguery: loudly lauding as "unbreakable" America's ties to Israel while at the same time dismantling them by denying validity to understandings made with previous US administrations, both oral and written.


Of course, there might be plenty of perfectly rational and, from Obama's perspective, sensible reasons why Iranian protestors are deserving of being deserted, or given not more than token support, grudgingly at that.


The most common theory is that he may have concluded that ayatollahs need the bomb only to protect their regime, so America's promise that she is not seeking regime change would cause them to abandon that goal; that millions of human beings would be forever enslaved, is to him a sensible trade-off.


Or perhaps he sees no real difference between one candidate and the other, and therefore sees no reason to get involved in a quarrel between the thugs.


Or he does not believe that the "reformers" have enough power to succeed, and would be suppressed anyways.


Or, as a true multi-culturalist, he simply does not see individual freedom as something absolute, lacking which people aren't really human, but sees it rather as a cultural phenomenon -- while ok for America, it does not fit into Iranian "culture," and so there is simply nothing wrong with ayatollahs' suppressing it.


Likewise, the President may see solid realpolitik reasons for moving away from Israel and realigning America with Moslem regimes.


But whether it be Israel or Iran, he chooses not to state his actual reasons for his stated policy, sensing that doing so might well be politically disastrous to him. Unable to use rational argument, he has no choice but to "justify" his policies through demagoguery. Like Tolkien's Saruman, Obama cannot be open about his views and goals. Like Saruman, to achieve his goals he has to rely only on the sweet persuasiveness of his voice.


Will Obama's demagoguery succeed? For a time, perhaps, it will; but there are several reasons why demagoguery tends to fail in the long run. For one, demagoguery is a sign of weakness, betraying as it does the fact that the speaker lacks the real argument, and is forced to resort to less-than-respectable means of underhanded trickery. Secondly, it ultimately winds up either unmasking the speaker, or bringing the disaster to his followers. And thirdly, there are many whom it fails to convince in the first place. Anyone who read Lord of the Rings knows that Saruman's seductive voice failed in convincing others to surrender to him -- besides the smooth delivery, his words conveyed nothing that a rational being would accept as a solidly convincing argument; after a while, they were recognized for pure demagoguery that they were. And it can backfire in yet another way, by eroding trust. When Obama makes a speech on a subject in which I have no expertise whatsoever, be it the economy or the environment, how am I to know that he is not being a demagogue this time, too?


Many a regime had been fostered by demagoguery, be it Soviet Union or the Nazi Germany of the past, or today's Iran or North Korea. If we are to deflate the deadly ambitions of such regimes, we should first unmask the falsehood of their ideologies by peeling off the smoothness of the words in which they are expressed. And looking beyond smooth words of our own leaders is a wholesome exercise, too. There will be no stopping the ayatollahs, the North Koreans, and their ilk if our own President is to keep coming up with mellifluously expressed, demagogic excuses for why America should passively stand by while they continue to carry on.


Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of "The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly."

5) Lieberman has become irrelevant
By Barak Ravid


It's been 100 days since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was
sworn-in, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's impact on foreign policy
has been negligible. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been
handling ties with the U.S.; President Shimon Peres has been in charge of
dealing with the Arab world and Lieberman and his office have faded into
irrelevance.

Whereas, in the coalition agreement, Lieberman demanded to be made
responsible for ties with the U.S., Barak is in fact in charge of
negotiations over construction in West Bank settlements. Meanwhile, there's
no end in sight to Egypt's and Jordan's boycott of Lieberman. In an effort
to fill the void, Peres will travel to Jordan's capital Amman to meet with
King Abdullah on Tuesday. And Lieberman? In two weeks' time he will tour
Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Colombia to counter Iran's influence in Latin
America.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's critical remarks about Israel's hawkish
foreign minister, during his recent meeting with Netanyahu, are just the tip
of the iceberg. Many diplomats who have met Lieberman got the feeling that
there was no one to talk to and that he has no influence over the Israeli
decision-making process.

The fact that Lieberman has left a bad impression is evident from a story he
himself told Moscow's Jewish community about his meeting with French Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner. Lieberman told his counterpart that the "natural
growth" of West Bank settlements required continued construction, citing the
shortage of kindergartens in his hometown of Nokdim as an example. Kouchner
cynically retorted that faced with a shortage, the children of Nokdim could
always attend Palestinian kindergartens. "I'm not sure they have
kindergartens," was what Lieberman told his Moscow audience he replied. "And
even if they did, our kids wouldn't make it back alive."

The French foreign minister was not amused.

Lieberman's visit to Washington constitutes further evidence of his
problematic image. Ahead of his arrival, Israeli diplomats had tried to
present him as someone pragmatic and reasonable. When he arrived in the U.S.
capital, he was not given an audience with U.S. President Barack Obama -
even though Peres, Barak and Netanyahu, who had visited before him, had met
with the president. Lieberman's aides said in response that they had not
asked to meet with Obama.

But the worst was still to come. His meeting with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton was described as a disaster. Clinton was reportedly offended by
Lieberman's comments during the press conference and when she later
accidently fell and hurt her hand, Washington diplomatic circles joked that
"she was pushed down the stairs by Yvet," according to a senior U.S.
official, who referred to Lieberman by his nickname.

Surprisingly, none other than Barak has come to Lieberman's aid. He tells
every foreign leader he meets that he has to run any policy issue past the
foreign minister.

Meanwhile, Lieberman's vision of closer cooperation with Moscow is at an
impasse. The Kremlin isn't particularly enthused by the idea and Russia's
policies toward Israel have stiffened.

Foreign Ministry officials are trying their utmost to protect Lieberman and
say every foreign policy decision is made jointly by him, Deputy Foreign
Minister Danny Ayalon and the ministry's director general, Yossi Gal. "It's
all coordinated," Lieberman's office insists. "Any attempt to portray a
different picture is false."

Other Foreign Ministry officials believe Lieberman isn't interested in being
involved in every decision the way former foreign minister Tzipi Livni was.
"Foreign policy issues just aren't his flesh and blood," they say. "Perhaps
he doesn't want the responsibility of making decisions on such charged
political issues as the settlements."

The Yisrael Beiteinu chairman keeps saying the Foreign Ministry needs to
return to its roots and focus on advocacy. But what exactly does that mean?
Last week Lieberman told a joke to Israeli diplomats being sent abroad - it
sheds light on his idea of diplomacy. "A tourist went to the Jerusalem
Biblical Zoo and saw a lamb and a wolf together in a cage," Lieberman said.
"He asked the zoo keeper, 'How do you get a lamb and a wolf to live together
peacefully?' The zoo keeper responded: 'We put a new lamb in the cage every
morning.'"

6) EC: European taxpayers paying price of settlements

European Commission says Israel's policy helping strangle Palestinian economy, making PA government more dependent on foreign aid


The European Commission says Israel's settlement policy helps strangle the Palestinian economy and makes the Palestinian government more dependent on foreign aid.


In an unusually harsh statement Monday, the commission said that "it is the European taxpayers who pay most of the price of this dependence."


The commission says expropriation of fertile land for Israeli settlements, roads that serve settlers only and West Bank checkpoints help constrain Palestinian economic growth and make the Palestinian government more dependent on aid.

The European Union is one of the largest donors to the Palestinian Authority.

The commission says this year alone it has paid more than 200 million euros ($280 million) to help cover the Palestinian budget deficit.

7) Dershowitz doesn't get it
By Melanie Phillips


A sobering view by one of Britain's most respected columnists

Alan Dershowitz is one of the most prolific, high-profile and indefatiguable defenders of Israel and the Jewish people against the tidal wave of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish feeling currently coursing through the west. So a piece by him in the Wall Street Journal giving expression to the rising anxiety being felt about Obama by American Jews naturally arouses great interest.


But just like the majority of American Jews, getting on for 80 per cent of whom voted for Obama, he is a Democrat supporter who is incapable of acknowledging the truth about this President. For most American Jews, the horror of even entertaining the hypothetical possibility that they might ever in a million years have to vote for a Republican is so great they simply cannot see what is staring them in the face — that this Democratic President is lethal for both Israel and the free world. And in this article Dershowitz shows that he too is just as blind.


Acknowledging the anxiety among some American Jews about Obama's attitude to Israel, Dershowitz concludes uneasily that there isn't really a problem here because all Obama is doing is putting pressure on Israel over the settlements, which most American Jews don't support anyway. But this is totally to miss the point. The pressure over the settlements per se is not the reason for the intense concern.


It is instead, first and foremost, the fact that Obama is treating Israel as if it is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Obama thus inverts aggressor and victim, denying Israel's six-decade long victimisation and airbrushing out Arab aggression. The question remains: why has Obama chosen to pick a fight with Israel while soft-soaping Iran which is threatening it with genocide? The answer is obvious: Israel is to be used to buy off Iran just as Czechoslovakia was used at Munich. Indeed, I would say this is worse even than that, since I suspect that Obama — coming as he does from a radical leftist milieu, with vicious Israel-haters amongst his closest friends — would be doing this to Israel even if Iran was not the problem that it is.


In any event, the double standard is egregious. Obama has torn up his previous understandings with Israel over the settlements while putting no pressure at all on the Palestinians, even though since they are the regional aggressor there can be no peace unless they end their aggression and certainly not until they accept Israel as a Jewish state, which they have said explicitly they will never do. On this, Obama is totally silent. So too is Dershowitz. That's some omission.


Next, Obama is pressuring Israel to set up a Palestine state — within two years this will exist, swaggers Rahm Emanuel. But everyone knows that as soon as Israel leaves the West Bank, Hamas — or even worse — will take over. The only reason the (also appalling) Abbas is still in Ramallah, enabling Obama to pretend there is a Palestinian interlocutor for peace, is because the Israelis are keeping Hamas at bay. Yet Dershowitz writes:




There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.

So what exactly does he think would happen if Israel came out of the West Bank and the Hamas rockets were down the road from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (literally: many in the west have absolutely no idea how tiny Israel is). It's not a question of Israel's 'right to defend its children'. If Obama has his way, Israel would not be able to defend its children or anyone else, because Obama would have removed its defences by putting its enemies in charge of them. It is astounding that Dershowitz can't see this.


Then there was Obama's appalling Cairo speech in which he conspicuously refrained from committing himself to defending Zionism and the Jewish people from the attacks and incitement to genocide against them, but committed himself instead to defending their attackers against 'negative stereotyping'. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.


Worse still, by falsely asserting that the Jewish aspiration for Israel derived from the Holocaust, Obama effectively denied that the Jewish people were in Israel as of right and thus endorsed the core element of the Arab and Muslim propaganda of war and extermination. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.


Obama drew a vile — and telling — equivalence between the Nazi extermination camps and the Palestinian 'refugee' camps. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Obama's statement that the Palestinians 'have suffered in pursuit of a homeland' was grossly and historically untrue, and again denied Arab aggression. On this, Dershowitz has nothing to say. Equally vilely, Obama equated genocidal terrorism by the Palestinians with the civil rights movement in America and the resistance against apartheid in South Africa. On all of this, Dershowitz has nothing to say.


Dershowitz also grossly underplays the terrible harm Obama is doing to the security not just of Israel but the world through his reckless appeasement of Iran. In the last few weeks, this has actively undercut the Iranian democrats trying to oust their tyrannical regime, and has actually strengthened that regime. All the evidence suggests ever more strongly that Obama has decided America will 'live with' a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.


But even here, where he is clearly most concerned, Dershowitz scuttles under his comfort blanket — Dennis Ross, who was originally supposed to have been the US special envoy to Iran but was recently announced senior director of the National Security Council and special assistant to the President for the region. It is not at all clear whether this ambiguous development represents a promotion or demotion for Ross. Either way, for Dershowitz to rest his optimism that Obama's Iran policy will be all right on the night entirely upon the figure of Dennis Ross is pathetic. Ross, a Jew who played Mr Nice to Robert Malley's Mr Nasty towards Israel in the Camp David debacle under President Clinton, is clearly being used by Obama as a human shield behind which he can bully Israel with impunity. American Jews assume that his proximity to Obama means the President's intentions towards Israel are benign. Dazzled by this vision of Ross as the guarantor of Obama's good faith, they thus ignore altogether the terrible import of the actual words coming out of the President's mouth.


The fact is that many American Jews are so ignorant of the history of the Jewish people, the centrality of Israel in its history and the legality and justice of its position that they probably saw nothing wrong in Obama saying that the Jewish aspiration for Israel came out of the Holocaust because they think this too. Nor do they see the appalling double standard in the bullying of Israel over the settlements and what that tells us about Obama's attitude towards Israel, because — as Dershowitz himself makes all too plain — they too think in much the same way, that the settlements are the principal obstacle to peace.


Many if not most American Jews have a highly sentimentalized view of Israel. They never go there, are deeply ignorant of its history and current realities, and are infinitely more concerned with their own view of themselves as social liberals, a view reflected back at themselves through voting for a Democrat President.


Whatever else he is, however, Dershowitz is certainly not ignorant. Which makes this lamentable article all the more revealing, and depressing.




JWR contributor Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author of, most recently, Londonistan. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. She was awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996.

8) Fattening the Beast:Obama's Twist on a GOP Budget Strategy
By Fred Hiatt



Since the Reagan era, some conservatives have hoped to shrink government by "starving the beast." Refuse to raise taxes, they figured, and eventually spending would have to fall.

It's beginning to look as though the new team may have a similar strategy, in reverse: Increase spending, and eventually taxes will have to be raised.

No official has articulated that to me as a strategy. But look at the evidence.

George Bush bequeathed to President Obama a nation heading slowly but surely toward fiscal disaster. Because of an aging population and rising health-care costs, spending -- primarily on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- will steadily rise in coming years, as the nonpartisan and authoritative Congressional Budget Office explained in a report last month. Revenue is not projected to rise nearly as quickly. The result, if the government does not alter course: crushing debt that could lead to hyperinflation, prolonged depression, or both. Poor people would suffer most, and there would be many more of them.

"The systematic widening of budget shortfalls projected under CBO's long-term scenarios has never been observed in U.S. history," the CBO pointed out in its usual dry style. And: "All in all, the U.S. economy could contract sharply for a long period."

Obama's response has been to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem -- and make it worse. I'm not talking about his record-breaking stimulus plan, which was essential (if not ideally shaped) given the recession he also inherited. Rather, it is Obama's long-term budget that would more than double the projected deficit over the next 10 years, to $9 trillion, by extending most of the Bush tax cuts and limiting the alternative minimum tax while creating new programs and entitlements (to college tuition scholarships, for example) and refusing to cut back on existing ones.

And that's not to mention his top priority, universal access to health care. Obama has said that reform must be paid for, and he hopes it will lead to a slowing in the growth of health-care costs. That would hugely improve the long-term budget outlook.

But the prospects of cost control are tenuous, experimental, distant and politically fraught; by comparison, creating an expensive new entitlement is easy. Obama has proposed to pay for part of universal access by collecting more income tax from the wealthy, which would make the existing deficit that much harder to close. The cost of the entitlement could rise more quickly than the revenue paying for it. There is a good chance, in other words, that whatever emerges from Congress this summer will worsen the budget prognosis.

The bottom line is this: You cannot run a progressive government of the kind Obama favors by collecting only 18 percent of the gross domestic product in taxes, which has been the norm over the past 40 years. Nor can you increase the tax take to 24.5 percent of GDP -- which is what Obama proposes to be spending in 2019 -- simply by making the rich pay more.

But rather than level with the American people about this, or lay out a plan to raise the needed taxes, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are putting the spending pieces of progressive government in place and apparently counting on the tax piece to fall into place later.

Just to be clear: I support universal access to health care, and I don't think there's any natural law that says the U.S. economy couldn't function with higher taxes -- say, 22 percent of GDP. But you can't get there without wrenching changes -- abolishing the mortgage and charitable deductions, for example, or instituting a nationwide consumption tax. And unless you raise taxes so high that you risk choking economic growth, you also will have to trim Medicare and Social Security benefits.

It would be foolishly counterproductive to begin closing the gap in the midst of recession. But you could be setting long-term changes in motion -- adjusting rules for people who will retire five or 10 years from now, for example.

Obama and his economic team understand all this, and maybe they have a plan to get from here to there. Maybe they'll do the popular stuff first, and then next year, or next term -- as global investors become alarmed at the U.S. fiscal outlook and begin driving our interest rates higher -- persuade Congress to take its medicine and get the fiscal house in order.

But let's not forget how that starving-the-beast thing worked out. Conservatives were happy to cut taxes, but cutting spending didn't appeal all that much, and deficits soared. By postponing all the "hard choices" he warns of, Obama may be scripting a sequel.

Sweet-Tammys.com - Pittsburgh's Finest Bakery!

As the nation's mood continues to be gloomy one way to brighten your day, sweeten your attitude, and uplift your perspective is to order some "sweet goods" from Sweet-Tammys.Com


My favorite remains the macaroons with both plain and chocolate bottoms. They can be placed in your freezer so ordering more than a dozen spreads shipping cost.

If your boss is a grouch, one bite should make him smile and, who knows, it might secure your job as our economy continues to waiver.

Everything is fresh baked and from scratch.

There are those who believe Obama's approach towards N Korea is just the right mixture of allowing N Korea to frighten/irritate China and raise their ire to the point that they will slap Kim down.

Those who embrace this view are of the opinion that Kim is more interested in the matter of succession and N Korea's missile launches are being undertaken to pay homage to their military. Perhaps but I consider that a very long shot. I am more persuaded by the one expressed below. (See 1 below.)

For those who consistently read this memo you will recall this is what I predicted months and months ago. Even 'so-called enemies' can be driven together by a commonality of overriding interests. (See 2 below.)

Wes Pruden wrestles with 'ol stupid' and concludes 'ol stupid' is really not stupid enough to let Obama off the hook. DUH! (See 3 and 3a below.)

Few if any take Sarah Palin at her word. To do so means letting a story, even a made up one, die. The press and media helped destroy her now they want to resurrect her so they can continue to keep punching their Palin Pinata.

I love old Sarah for her brashness, her feisty way and goofiness. However, Sarah is no match even for Obama, as dangerous as I believe him to be. If she tries to go for the big brass ring either she will fail or cause the Republicans to fail. Romney is a far better bet for the nation, assuming Republicans care about winning.

Other articles: 'Once Again, An Enigma Plays It by Her Rules' - Dan Balz, Washington Post, 'Put Yourself In Palin's Shoes' - Mark Steyn, National Review, 'Sarah Palin's Bizarre Bombshell' - James Antle, The Guardian, 'Palin Makes Herself the True Frontrunner' - John Batchelor, Daily Beast and 'The 2012 Campaign Begins' - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek (See 4 and
4a below.)

Finally, the editorial desk at The Washington Post is either getting brave or have lost their collective minds - they are criticizing a powerful Democrat and attacking Democrat hypocrisy! Has something new and strange seeped into the Potomac's water. (See 5 below.)

Hope you had a safe and enjoyable 4th and the upcoming week will be a good one.

Dick


1)Submissiveness to North Korea is also the international model for Iran's first nuclear test


Although the US Navy is purportedly on the ready to intercept any North Korean missiles directed at the Sea of Japan, according to a leak from Washington, the Obama administration let Pongyang's test-launch of 7 missiles on July 4 go by with a mere verbal reproach: The launches were "not helpful," said a State Department spokesman. "North Korea should refrain from actions that aggravate tensions and focus on de-nuclearization talks and the implementation of its commitments from the September 19, 2005 joint statement," he said.

Beijing and Moscow agreed.

But North Korea has refused to go back to those talks and consistently shrugs off the sanctions the UN Security Council imposed unanimously after its long-range ballistic test in April and nuclear test in May.

The seven-missile barrage, deliberately launched Saturday, the Fourth of July, is reported by the Japanese news agency to consist of 6 Scud-type 500-km range missiles, capable of reaching most of South Korea.

The seventh appears to be a Nodong A, with a range of 1,000 km, which brings Japan within striking distance. Yet no official in Washington came forward to explain why the US Navy failed to intercept it.


Military sources report the US, Europe - and even the Binyamin Netanyahu government - appear to have adopted the same strategy for North Korea and Iran. It is a combination of harsh oral rebukes coupled with a refusal to address North Korea's violations and Iran's race for a nuclear bomb in any practical way, even though sanctions are clearly of no effect at all.

A blind eye is equally turned to the close collaboration between Pyongyang and Tehran on their missile and nuclear development programs. The two rogue states are also clearly in tune on their nuclear diplomacy.

According to DEBKAfile's intelligence sources, North Korea shared the results of its missile launches on Saturday with Iran, exactly as it did after its nuclear and ballistic tests. But neither Washington nor Jerusalem has raised a hand. Both nuclear transgressors are getting away with the gross, ongoing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and making a mockery of international law and UN resolutions.

This big-power weakness was conspicuous Friday, July 3, when the Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, shortly after his election to succeed Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei as director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, commented: "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this." He was answering a question about documents attesting to Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

The US and Israel went to a lot of trouble to get Amano elected, hoping he would deal more strictly with Iran than the easy-going ElBaradai. But neither corrected his first statement.

The Japanese diplomat must have decided to keep his head down too after looking around and seeing the Obama administration still bidding for dialogue with an unresponsive Tehran and Pyongyang, and everyone else looking the other way from their brazen defiance of international norms.

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, instead of putting Amano right on the job he was expected to do, let his dismissive remark go unanswered, just as he let the actions of Iran's nuclear collaborator, North Korea, go by without comment, notwithstanding its dangerous implications for Israel's national security


2) 'Saudis give Israel green light to attack Iran'


Saudi Arabia has indicated to Israel that it would not protest use of its airspace by Israeli fighter jets in the event the government resolves to launch a military assault against Iran, according to a report which appeared in the British Sunday Times.

According to The Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials who gave their tacit approval to Israel's use of the kingdom's airspace.

"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia," The Sunday Times quoted a diplomatic source as saying last week.


The report also quoted John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as saying that it would be "entirely logical" for Israeli warplanes to fly over Saudi Arabia en route to bombing nuclear targets in Iran.

Though any Israeli attack would be roundly condemned by Mideast leaders at the UN, Bolton said Arab leaders have privately expressed trepidation at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

"None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success," Bolton told The Sunday Times

3) Ol' Stupid begins to notice things
By Wesley Pruden

Too bad for Barack Obama and the Democrats, but George W. Bush is the shrinking man of American politics, growing ever smaller on the far horizon. Merely invoking his name will soon no longer frighten women and horses.


The not-so-new president has treated his predecessor as his training wheels, invoking his presence every time (which is often) the ground trembles, a dog barks, the wind blows, the rain falls and he threatens to topple over. We were promised nirvana, or at least a lollipop, if only we could banish George W. and the inept and evil Republicans. Banish we did, and the messiah from the South Side of Chicago has been practicing miracle-working for five months. Alas, there's no sign of clearing skies.


Five months is not very long, of course, and it's unreasonable to expect nirvana so soon, but that's the nature of the impatient American public. Reason, like love, has nothing to do with it. With every nightfall, the news gets worse, or at least not any better, and growing numbers of Americans are beginning to doubt that he has all the answers he so confidently insisted he did. The public-opinion polls clearly show deteriorating public confidence in the confidence man. Worse than not having the answers is the growing suspicion that Mr. Obama and his wise men even understand the question.


The unemployment numbers, the closely watched benchmark by which presidents are judged, stood at 7.2 percent when Mr. Obama took his oath, and Thursday, it inched up to 9.5 percent. The average workweek subsided in June to 33 hours, lowest since the feds began keeping such records in 1964. Cutting hours and freezing pay has spread even to companies awash in profits, with managers, never wanting to waste a crisis and looking to an uncertain future, are taking advantage now, just in case.


"We are in some very hard and severe economic times," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told an interviewer in the wake of the new bad news. "The president and I are both not happy. I do think the public needs to be patient. We know they are hurting."


The president is saying the things every president says when recession hits and panic and depression threaten. Some of the president's friends insist they see "tiny green shoots" on the landscape, promising prosperity soon. The president himself concedes the economy is in a hole and blames the man who preceded him. His predecessor's policies "have left us in a very deep hole," he says, "and digging our way out of it will take time, patience and some tough choices." The secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, likes the shovel-ready metaphor, too. "You know," she told a television interviewer the other day, "we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out."


What "somebody" should do is hide those shovels from "everybody." If you're in a hole, as any ditch digger could tell you, the only thing you can do with a shovel is dig yourself a little deeper into the hole. Not a good idea. A speechifyer such as Barack Obama is expected to be more careful with his metaphors (Hillary gets a pass), and the president's growing problem is that growing numbers of voters who imagined he was "the one" now think he's in that hole and over his head.


The Democrats diverted attention from shortcomings big and small for a decade of depression by hauling poor old Herbert Hoover out for frequent floggings, and Mr. Obama obviously thinks he can similarly use George W. Bush. But that was then and this is now; no president now can monopolize the microphone as FDR did, with his mastery of press and radio and equipped with a terrified and compliant Congress. Barack Obama once imagined he could make it so by saying it's so, but that only works for a little while. He's learning what presidents before him learned, that the job of president is harder than it looks.


As the effects of the stimulus, such as they are, begin a slow fade, the unemployment number, already the highest in 26 years, is projected to keep rising. Shrinking payrolls naturally restrain growth. A jobless recovery driven by federal spending may improve certain numbers, but "it's the economy, Stupid." Stupid, standing in the rain out there on the street will say, "Where are the jobs?" Stupid is not actually as stupid as presidents sometimes hope he is. He's not so stupid that he can't see who that is in the White House.

3a) Welcome to the "hope" economy
By David Harsanyi


After being asked when the public should begin judging the success of the nearly $800-billion stimulus plan, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs answered, "I think we should begin to judge it now."

Let's take his advice.

The administration warned that if we failed to support a stimulus package, unemployment would hit a dire 9 percent by 2010. With the stimulus, unemployment, it claimed, would stay in the 8-percent range.

This week, the Labor Department announced that the jobless rate jumped to 9.5 percent, higher than any time since August 1983.

It's not as if the administration was close. As the New York Times notes, "the difference between the situation that the Obama advisers predicted and the one that has come to pass is about 2.5 million jobs. It's as if every worker in the city of Los Angeles received an unexpected layoff notice."

Don't get too dejected, though. We still have an economic plan with a heaping dose of hope.

Surely, you'll feel better when the president begins doling out his two-pronged, faith-based explanation — and if we're lucky, he'll do it at a "town hall" meetings with approximately 100 of his closest friends.

First, you should always assume things could have been worse.

This leap of faith involves buying the "save-and-created-jobs" myth the president likes to peddle. And if you're lucky enough to be working on some state-run boondoggle awash in freshly printed money, smile. As for the rest of America, we once again learn that government spending rarely spurs wider economic prosperity.

But let's, for argument's sake, make believe that the stimulus plan has saved or created 150,000 jobs.

By the end of June, $53 billion in stimulus funding has been spent on weatherizing projects, land bridges for rodents and checks for 10,000 formerly living Americans (this administration doesn't only create jobs, it creates life). That puts the cost of each job supposedly saved at about $354,000, or, exactly the sort of efficiency you'd expect from D.C.

The "things-could-have-been worse" argument is nothing new and neither is the second line of defense: Blame capitalism.

So, let's also pretend, for the moment, that an era of widespread deregulation spurred a global recession. What exactly has Obama done to mitigate it?

Instead of exerting his extraordinary political capital to bolster American business, the president was busy targeting the investor class; instead of easing the burden on the middle class, Obama radically increased spending and debt; instead of encouraging market innovation, Washington has bolstered the status quo by bailing out antiquated, poorly run industries and crowding out small businesses.

Obama now urges Americans to be patient on the stimulus package. Yet, at the same time, the president exhibits a decisive lack of patience as he sprints forward with generational tax increases, in both cap-and-trade policy and a trillion dollar-plus health-care "reform."

Not surprisingly, many polls illustrate an increasing skepticism regarding the stimulus package and a growing distrust of Washington's unparalleled meddling in the economy. According to a June Rasmussen poll, a plurality of Americans now want government stimulus spending to be canceled.

This rising unease did not stop White House counselor David Axelrod from recently declaring that a second stimulus might be needed.

Needed to do what, one wonders? "Save and create" another 150,000 imaginary jobs?

One day we will emerge from recession, we always do. And on that day Obama will almost certainly take credit.

But one wonders, when will the glorious "new era of responsibility" actually kick in.

After all, as of right now, judging solely from the administration's very own promises and timeline, we are left with nothing to show for an irresponsible spending binge.

4) Palin decision to resign mystifies some, thrills others: NATIONAL REACTION: Democrats cite "bizarre behavior"; backers rally.
By ERIKA BOLSTAD
If Sarah Palin is stepping down as governor because she has national political ambitions -- and she did not say she intends to run for president -- her move did nothing to shake what GOP pollster Whit Ayers called "the 'lightweight' monkey on her back."


"If you're a serious politician and you're seriously interested in higher office, the best thing you can do is as good a job as possible in the current office," Ayers said. "I suppose it frees her from the responsibility of a full-time job. It does nothing to enhance the image she has that she's not material for the president of the United States."

Nearly rubbing their hands in glee, Democrats said that it "continues a pattern of bizarre behavior."

"Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long-shot national political ambitions, or she simply can't handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan.

For elected officials with lengthy records of service, such as former Sen. Bob Dole, devoting their full attention to their presidential bid can be a smart move, said Stuart Roy, a political consultant who has worked for Republican congressional leaders. That argument just doesn't work for Palin, Roy said, adding that he admired Sen. John McCain's decision to pick her as his running mate last year.

"Maybe there is a personal reason of some sort," Roy said. "But barring that, if it's a political move geared at 2012, it's one of the most politically tone-deaf moves in years. Two and a half years as governor doesn't mean you shouldn't be president; look at Barack Obama. But it doesn't set you up for anything, either."

Palin's staunchest supporters in the anti-abortion movement, however, said they were pleased and appreciate continuing to have a high-profile role model who opposes abortion. They firmly believe that whatever she does next will have an "equal and profound impact," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, who co-founded the Team Sarah social networking Web site popular with Palin supporters who oppose abortion.

"Sarah Palin has always been an intensely independent woman -- always true to her faith, her family and call to public service," Dannenfelser said.

And maybe Palin doesn't want to run for president, said Fred Malek, a prominent Republican fundraiser who got to know Palin during the presidential campaign and has been advising her since then.


It was obvious she was dissatisfied with her role as governor, Malek said, although he was not aware she planned to step down and did not suggest she do so.

"I did have the impression she was not happy in the role in she was in," Malek said. "We see her through a political prism, but I think we sometimes forget she's a wife and mother of five kids and has responsibilities that are very dear to her."

No matter what path Palin chooses, Malek said, she has plenty of options, including serving as a powerful fundraiser for other governors and like-minded Republican candidates she believes in. A run at the presidency may not be in her future, he said.

"I take her at her word," he said. "I don't think she's made any plans in that regard."

But Malek noted Palin's star power and the way she can electrify some Republican crowds nationally.

He recently escorted Palin and her husband to the Senate-House dinner, an annual Republican fundraiser in Washington, D.C., for congressional candidates. Despite the controversy over her appearance at the event -- she had been asked to speak at the dinner but was replaced with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after a mix-up over whether she would attend -- Palin was the star attraction, Malek said.

"Our table was mobbed," he said. "I felt like a celebrity."

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told Fox News that Palin's resignation now, three years before the next presidential election, "is real unconventional."

"It's a huge gamble -- but some of her gambles have paid off in the past," he said.

4a) Palin resignation splits GOP
By: Jonathan Martin

Sarah Palin’s jaw-dropping announcement that she is quitting her job as Alaska governor before finishing even her first term has divided Republican ranks and the wider political community in a very familiar fashion.

Many establishment GOP operatives and political commentators of various stripes were withering, both about the decision and the way she announced it — in a jittery, hyperkinetic news conference that rambled between self-congratulation and bitter accusations at the foes she says are eager to destroy her.

The performance, by these lights, adds credence to the claims of some associates that Palin — burned by the intense scrutiny on her and the crossfire that swirls around her — is so fed up that she's ready to get out of elective politics. Even if it's only the small stage of Alaska politics she hopes to escape, skeptics say Friday’s events also diminished and perhaps even demolished what was left of her viability as a 2012 presidential candidate.

But her defenders believed an unorthodox move, even if risky, has a clear logic and may only further increase her standing with conservatives who don’t care what establishment figures in or out of the GOP think. Leaving the governor’s office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move.

These varied reactions were an echo of the debates that have followed Palin every step since her nomination as John McCain’s running mate 10 months ago — a surprise that turned out to be just the first of many surprises served up by one of the most colorful and polarizing American political figures in a generation.

At the heart of these conflicting interpretations, say people close to Palin, is a woman who is herself deeply conflicted about her brief past in national politics and how to leverage her sudden fame for the future.

Some of her trusted outside advisers were not informed of her plans to suddenly resign from office until today – they thought she was only to announce she would not run for reelection.

Fred Malek, a longtime Republican fundraiser and Palin ally, played host to the governor and her husband, Todd, less than a month again in Washington and said it was “so clear to me that she was terribly unhappy with the position she was in and the role she was playing.”

He didn’t learn of Palin’s decision until he got a phone call from the governor this morning, when she cited the pressures of a job that had become consumed with FOIA requests and ethics investigations and the demands it taken on her family and national political prospects.

Another prominent GOP source who is close to Palin, who also had no inkling of Palin’s decision to quit until today, said: “Things had piled up pretty steep on her.”

Meg Stapleton, Palin’s Alaska-based spokeswoman, called it “a fighting move.”

But even Stapleton acknowledged that the job Palin said she loved during the press conference had become a drag.

“It’s a liberating feeling. ... She can’t get out of there soon enough,” said Stapleton.

But liberation comes at a potentially steep price. These include brutal reviews from many Republicans, who believe that quitting mid-term in the fashion she did amounts to political suicide.

“There is just no good way to say quitting has made her more qualified to run for higher office,” said veteran GOP pollster Glen Bolger.

Until Friday, after all, Stapleton and others close to Palin had been saying for months that the governor would take an Alaska-first approach and eschew national affairs. The hope was to compile more of a record and develop more policy authority.

“I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh,” quipped Republican media consultant Todd Harris.


Even those who were less critical of her choice were taken aback by Palin’s rambling, hard-to-follow news conference by the side of a lake outside her home. The performance had shades of Richard Nixon’s “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore” news promise in 1962, as well as Mark Sanford’s bizarre exercise in self-revelation just last month.

Palin mixed analogies to herself as a basketball player who knows “when it’s time to pass the ball” with bitter commentary against “political operatives [who] descended on Alaska — digging for dirt” as part of a “superficial, wasteful political bloodsport.”

“Palin is at her best when she’s being folksy but there is no way to be folksy when you’re resigning as governor,” said veteran GOP strategist Dan Schnur.

She portrayed her resignation as a selfless choice done for the good of Alaskans. She said they will now be free of the expensive and distracting — and she said bogus — ethics inquiries generated by her new prominence. “Some Alaskans, maybe they don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time, but I do,” she said.

But some believe Palin, for all the loose and improvisational feel of her news conference, was making a calculated guess that she is now bigger than Alaska’s small and remote political stage can handle.

With a recent book deal and ability for paid speaking engagements giving her great financial freedom, reasoned GOP communications strategist Carl Forti, “If she wants to run for national office it makes sense to get out of Alaska and around the lower 48. Resigning makes that possible.”

Malek and some of her other outside advisers expressed skepticism that she would run for president in 2012, but others saw in the move today the beginnings of a national campaign.

“She’s now made sure that she is entirely a movement candidate,” said veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. “She brings no real experience to the table at all, but now this frees her up to carve out her own Goldwater-like movement.”

And then there is a practical matter, Shrum noted: Palin and her husband, with five children of their own and a new grandson, will likely never have to worry about money again.

“She could make more in two weeks on just speaking fees than in the rest of her time as governor,” said Shrum.

The move may also be pragmatic if Palin really does want to lay the groundwork for a presidential run.

“I don't think you can do a competent job of being a governor of a state next door to Russia and run seriously for president of the United States,” said Charlie Cook. “It's hard enough to do one of those two, let alone both. While Bill Clinton ran while being governor of Arkansas and George W. Bush as governor of Texas, Little Rock and Austin are not that far by Cessna Citation or Gulfstream from New Hampshire or Florida or California.”

And, Cook noted, there is little political upside to being a governor during difficult economic times, when the options usually range from tax or fee increases to budget cuts.

“Bailing out early may avoid making some of those tough decisions,” said Cook.

William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and an outspoken Palin defender, acknowledged Palin’s move was “an enormous gamble” but said it could prove smart.

“Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues — and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska,” said Kristol.

Stapleton cited issues Palin was passionate about – energy, national security and free enterprise – but indicated that the governor was being vague about what she planned to do next for a reason.

“Those blanks need to be filled in,” said Stapleton when asked specifically what Palin planned after turning her office over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

5)Hypocrisy on the Hill: Congress's cowardly move to tie the president's hands on detainee

FOR YEARS, Democrats clamored for the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using the prison to pummel President George W. Bush for abusing his authority, violating domestic and international law, and tarnishing the reputation of the United States. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) felt so strongly about the issue that she sponsored legislation in 2007 to force Mr. Bush to shutter the facility.

Now lawmakers are making it nearly impossible for President Obama to close the notorious prison by year's end, as he promised to do.

Ms. Feinstein, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and 88 other senators -- including every Republican -- voted to attach to a must-pass, supplemental war spending bill several provisions that tie the president's hands. Ms. Feinstein complained that the president lacked a detailed plan to deal with detainees. Facing fear-mongering opponents who essentially accused Mr. Obama of having his heart set on letting hard-core terrorists roam through American backyards, the Senate withered and collapsed, with Maryland Democrats Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin and Virginia Democrats James Webb and Mark Warner joining the pack. Only six senators -- all Democrats -- had the courage to vote against this wrong-headed amendment: Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.), and Rhode Island's Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse.

As a result of the vote, the president is prohibited from using taxpayer funds to order the release of any detainee into the United States, including those cleared by the Bush administration and the federal courts; he is likewise forbidden to bring any Guantanamo prisoners to the United States for preventive detention. The president must give lawmakers a 45-day heads up before ordering any detainee prosecuted in a U.S. court proceeding and he must give Congress 15 days' notice of his decision to send a detainee to another country.

It is therefore easy to understand why Mr. Obama may be tempted to circumvent lawmakers: The Post reported that he is considering an executive order to establish a preventive detention regime for those who may be too dangerous to release but against whom there is not enough usable evidence to file formal charges in a traditional courtroom. But he should resist the temptation of acting alone. Mr. Bush often did end runs around lawmakers for fear of being constrained; eventually the courts circumscribed his powers more than they likely would have if he had worked with Congress. Mr. Obama's best course lies in opening discussions with Congress on fashioning a preventive detention regime that will ensure due process and humane treatment of detainees. Let's hope that there will be leaders on the Hill available for thoughtful discussion.