Click on WORD for full content
Tony Blankley comments on how the situation in Afghanistan has worsened since Obama’s announcement of the scheduled US exit.
…Unfortunately, what the president and his political operatives meant as a little useful spin for their domestic base was taken as formal policy by foreign players – and they have acted accordingly. Our two allies in the Afghan war – Pakistan and Afghanistan – having heard the “spin” as policy have irrevocably taken the strategic action of discounting America as a reliable force in theater. And, as the president’s strategy relied on gaining and keeping their trust and loyalty, his strategy has necessarily collapsed. In the coming months, we should expect many more words of explanation in Washington and many more failures in Afghanistan. Alea iacta est (the die is cast). …
In Contentions, Abe Greenwald posts on the American University of Iraq.
About a month ago, while traveling in northern Iraq, I happened to visit in the same afternoon what my co-traveler Reuel Gerecht called “the best thing I’ve seen in the Middle East in 25 years,” as well as traces of the worst thing that happened there in the same period of time. Those two things are, respectively, the American University of Iraq at Sulaimani and the memorial erected in Halabja, where some 5,000 Kurds were killed with chemical weapons. At the best, university students sport American-flag t-shirts and talk enthusiastically about political ideology. At the worst, the names of the dead are etched into black marble walls. At the best, Kurdish and Arab Iraqi girls play basketball together during breaks from comparative-religion class. At the worst, pictures of melted faces line a dark hallway. The best is the product of American courage, American generosity of spirit, and American imagination. The worst was accomplished by Saddam Hussein, from whom American soldiers delivered a long-suffering country. …
Jennifer Rubin blogs about one Arab nation that is willing to publicly oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
… The latest indication comes in this report from Eli Lake:
The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.
…“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE.” …
Thomas Sowell tells us how Republicans are poised to screw up.
…It goes like this: Democrats start spending money wildly, handing out goodies to a wide range of people who they want to vote for them, while Republicans complain about deficits and the national debt. Then, when the public becomes alarmed about the debts that are piling up, the Democrats get the Republicans to vote for higher taxes to deal with the debt crisis, in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”
Sometimes the deal is sweetened by the Democrats promising to make spending cuts if the Republicans vote for higher taxes, so that there can be one of those “bipartisan” solutions so beloved by the media. But, after the Republicans vote for the tax increases, and come running up to find the spending cuts, the Democrats snatch away the spending cuts and the Republicans fall right on their backsides, just like Charlie Brown.
This old trick is now being unveiled by the Obama administration, like so many other old political tricks used in this “change” administration.
…There is already a bipartisan commission set to provide political cover for the Democrats’ wild spending that has increased the national debt from 63 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product in 2004 to 83 percent in 2009— and official estimates of more than 90 percent this year, with more increases in sight. …
Walter Williams shares some interesting thoughts and statistics on poverty.
…Material poverty can be measured relatively or absolutely. An absolute measure would consist of some minimum quantity of goods and services deemed adequate for a baseline level of survival. Achieving that level means that poverty has been eliminated. However, if poverty is defined as, say, the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution, it is impossible to eliminate poverty. Everyone’s income could double, triple and quadruple, but there will always be the lowest one-fifth.
Yesterday’s material poverty is all but gone. In all too many cases, it has been replaced by a more debilitating kind of poverty — behavioral poverty or poverty of the spirit. This kind of poverty refers to conduct and values that prevent the development of healthy families, work ethic and self-sufficiency. The absence of these values virtually guarantees pathological lifestyles that include: drug and alcohol addiction, crime, violence, incarceration, illegitimacy, single-parent households, dependency and erosion of work ethic. Poverty of the spirit is a direct result of the perverse incentives created by some of our efforts to address material poverty.
Ed Morrissey has a post that warms our hearts. He blogs about Justice Anthony Kennedy’s plan to stay on SCOTUS until after Obama’s term is done. Many thanks to you, Justice Kennedy!
…Obama certainly reveled in his prime-time, televised, cheap-shot attack at jurists who couldn’t fire back. Samuel Alito took fire from the media for having just mouthed a rebuttal. The only revenge any of them can take is to make sure that they stay in place until Obama leaves office. The “at least” part of the report almost certainly means that retirement at 80 may be just as possible as retirement at 76. After all, John Paul Stevens didn’t decide to retire until he was almost 90 years old.
Perhaps the timing is just a coincidence and Kennedy didn’t have plans to retire any earlier even prior to the 2008 election. However, this looks more like a quiet revenge, and a reminder to Obama that Kennedy will likely remain relevant longer than the President.
Ed Morrissey has more good news.
So far, the midterms look to be a good year for Republicans in Congressional elections, which have caught most of the media attention. However, as Eric Ostermeier argues at Smart Politics, it looks as though the Republican Governors Association may have a banner year for new membership as well. The University of Minnesota scholar believes that the GOP may win more elections on this level than any time in the past 90 years…
…Why is this important on a national scale? Next year, state legislatures will begin drafting redistricting plans in accordance with new Census data from this year. Republican governors can ensure that Democratic legislatures don’t gerrymander the GOP out of competitiveness in key states. Winning the midterms in Congress is critical to stopping the Obama agenda; winning the redistricting battles will mean that Democrats can’t stack the deck in 2012 to get it restarted.
In the WSJ, Stephen Moore gives an instance where teachers’ unions are refusing to cut costs, and trying to force taxpayers to pay for their perks.
…The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association was immovable on benefits in part because it placed a bet on its Democratic friends in Washington rushing to the rescue. “The problem must be addressed with a national solution, a federal stimulus package that will restore educator positions,” Pat Omar, the union’s executive director said in June. The union’s strategy in recent weeks has been to stage rallies demanding a federal bailout, and it used hundreds of school kids at those rallies as political props.
Milwaukee’s experience suggests that the $23 billion bailout fund is meant to provide a federal life raft to keep afloat the unsustainable, gold-plated compensation packages that unions negotiated when states and cities were flush with cash. The citizens of Wisconsin have rejected tax increases to avoid layoffs, and they’re right to have done so. …
Hats off to the UK. In the WaPo, Marc Thiessen reports on the exciting news.
…Last week, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne unveiled an emergency budget that would be the envy of Tea Partyers here in the former colonies. Osborne announced dramatic spending cuts of 25 percent for all departments of government — the steepest reductions in eight decades. The austerity measures include a two-year wage freeze for nearly 6 million government employees, and nearly $17 billion in welfare cuts. …
…The Osborne budget shares the same objective as the Tea Party movement here in America: to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. London’s Spectator gushes, “The assault proposed on public sector is, quite rightly, massive — much bigger than anything ever done by Margaret Thatcher.” The government’s Office of Budget Responsibility estimates the budget changes will eliminate 610,000 public-sector jobs over the next five years (mostly, Osborne insists, from not filling vacant posts), while creating 1.3 million new private-sector jobs — a massive transfer of workers from government to private employment.
Critics predicted a fierce popular backlash, but a recent poll showed that British voters support the budget by a margin of 57 to 23 percent (the only provision of the budget opposed by a majority of Britons was an increase in the value-added tax). Since the budget was released, Conservatives have risen from 36 percent support on Election Day to 42 percent support today. According to Liam Fox, the first official of the new government to visit Washington, if the election were held today the Tories would be able to form a government on their own. …