We read the boring stuff so you don't have to! Some of my favorite lines, and a few of the them are jaw-dropping, from the New York Times Sunday Magazine on Obama's learning curve:

"Running against Clinton’s wife, Obama was the anti-Clinton. Now he hopes, in a way, to be the second coming of Bill Clinton. Because, in the end, it’s better than being Jimmy Carter."

“We’re all a lot more cynical now,” one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. “It’s not that we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington,” another White House official told me. “ ‘Arrogance’ isn’t the right word, but we were overconfident.”

"That’s a refrain heard inside the White House as well: it’s a communication problem. The first refuge of any politician in trouble is that it’s a communication problem, not a policy problem. If only I explained what I was doing better, the people would be more supportive. Which roughly translates to If only you people paid attention, you wouldn’t be kicking me upside the head."

"It seems there’s an ideological rigidity [ with Obama] that the American people did not sense."

"But in politics, theater matters, whether it should or not, a lesson Obama keeps relearning, however grudgingly. His decision to redecorate the Oval Office was criticized as an unnecessary luxury in a time of austerity, no matter that it was paid for by private funds. On the campaign trail, he thought it was silly to wear a flag pin, as if that were a measure of his patriotism, until his refusal to wear a flag pin generated distracting criticism and one day he showed up wearing one. Likewise, he thought it was enough to pray in private while living in the White House, and then a poll showed that most Americans weren’t sure he’s Christian; sure enough, a few weeks later, he attended services at St. John’s Church across from Lafayette Square, photographers in tow."

"Insulation is a curse of every president, but more than any president since Jimmy Carter, Obama comes across as an introvert, someone who finds extended contact with groups of people outside his immediate circle to be draining. He can rouse a stadium of 80,000 people, but that audience is an impersonal monolith; smaller group settings can be harder for him."

"He was subdued during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, when he found himself largely powerless. Other presidents took refuge at Camp David, but Michelle Obama has told dinner guests that her husband does not care for it all that much, because he is an urban guy."    

"Perhaps the more important historical pattern to consider is this one: The last four presidents who failed to win a second term were all challenged in their own party."

"Still, for all the second-guessing, what you do not hear in the White House is much questioning of the basic elements of the program — Obama aides, liberal and moderate alike, reject complaints from the right that the stimulus did not help the economy or that health care expands government too much, as well as complaints from the left that he should have pushed for a bigger stimulus package or held out for a public health care option."

"Obama is preaching patience in an impatient age. One prominent Democratic lawmaker told me Obama’s problem is that he is not insecure — he always believes he is the smartest person in any room and never feels the sense of panic that makes a good politician run scared all the time..."

"But would he jeopardize re-election absent an immediate crisis? The choice may confront him soon after the midterms when his bipartisan fiscal commission reports back by Dec. 1 with plans to tame the national deficit with a politically volatile menu of unpalatable options, like scaling back Medicare and Social Security while raising taxes. Obama also anticipates putting immigration reform, another divisive issue fraught with political danger, back on the table. “If the question is, Over the next two years do I take a pass on tough stuff,” he told me, “the answer is no.” 

"They are more optimistic about 2012 than they are about 2010, believing the Tea Party will re-elect Barack Obama by pulling the Republican nominee to the right. They doubt Sarah Palin will run and figure Mitt Romney cannot get the Republican nomination because he enacted his own health care program in Massachusetts. If they had to guess today, some in the White House say that Obama will find himself running against Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor." 

"Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections."

"At bottom, this president is still a mystery to many Americans. During the campaign, he sold himself — or the idea of himself — more than any particular policy, and voters filled in the lines as they chose. He was, as he said at the time, the ultimate Rorschach test."

"Now the lines are being filled in further. With each choice Obama makes, he further defines himself for better or worse in Americans’ minds. He says he knows where he is going and is gathering momentum despite the hurdles ahead. “I start slow, but I finish strong.”

"He will have to, if the history he is writing is to turn out the way he prefers.   [Amazing this is how the NYT finishes the piece, I think they've lost all hope!]    

Dan Rather is dumb, very, very dumb.

Rahm Causes a Feeding Frenzy

The MSM can't quite seem to let themselves blame Obama for his failures with healthcare, and certainly can't be a problem with his liberal agenda, so let's go after the aide who is easiest to blame...chief of staff Rahm Emanuel! By all accounts, friends and enemies agree, he is a foul-mouthed, hot-tempered jackass who may be a spawn of the devil and walks around in the Congressional gym showers jabbing his finger in the chests of showering men who oppose healthcare. He is also the architect of the Democrats regaining control of the House. Emanuel argued, correctly, that Democrats can win those moderate districts if they allow their candidates to run and vote as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Pelosi made this deal with the devil, I wonder what she thinks of it these days, and now she is Speaker of the House trying to push a liberal agenda on the numerous blue dog Democrats who make up her majority. Maybe it was the blue dog Democrats who made the deal with devil, either way the Dems will be be unhappy come election day 2010. Rahm may not be around to help the Democrats pick up the pieces.

Okay, back to Rahm's critics. It has been amazing the speed the liberal media has gathered in feeding on Emanuel and he isn't even dead yet. The Washington Post has had dueling articles as to how important and reasonable Rahm is, which caused David Broder to explode on the opinion page. Over at the NY Times and HuffPo are adding their own whacks to the carcass. Now The Hill, a rather serious media outlet, is eying the "chatter" over Emanuel and is wondering what it means. The conclusions offered by the legislators, politicians, and intellectuals is bit startling, Obama's White House is beginning to fall apart. Maybe Rush is right, the Democrats are in even bigger disarray than anyone suspected.

Ahhh, rats!

CBS was right, apparently. Pakistan did not capture one of the most annoying terrorists Adam Gadahn. He is an American who converted to Islam and now makes sure Osama bin Laden's video appeals to Westerners are grammatically correct and media savvy!

Gadahn was indicted in 2006 by a federal grand jury in Orange County, California on charges of "providing material support to Al Qaeda by appearing in videos on five different occasions between Oct. 27, 2004, and Sept. 11, 2006, with the intent 'to betray the United States.'"

Gadahn update #2

Now CBS news is claiming that Adam Gadahn was not picked up by Pakistan intelligence agents. They are reporting that a top level Taliban official known as Abu Yahya, not Gadahn. Reportedly Yahya was born in Pennsylvania, making him an American, hence the confusion. Guess we will have to see how this plays out because some news outlets are still reporting it as Gadahn.

Gadahn update

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air and Rick Moran from Right Wing Nut House point out that the US does not have an extradition treaty with Pakistan and unless Adam Gadahn is in US custody we may not get to try him on treason. Of course, if Pakistani intelligence forces are "working" with Mr. Gadahn he may want to be turned over to the US and the more gentle auspices of Obama! But if Gadahn is as truly annoying as media reports say, al Qaeda may have turned him over because they were tired of him, then maybe he should stay with the Pakistanis. Either way it is suspicious that Pakistan intelligence agents were able to pick him up fairly easily in light of the rumors of the close ties between Pakistan intelligence and the Taliban.

One for the good guys!

Adam Gadahn the American born al Qaeda spokesman has been captured in Pakistan. Gadahn, also known as "Azzam the American," had just released a new al Qaeda video calling on all "honest and vigilant Muslims" to go on shooting sprees against Americans a la Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood. Gadahn had a million dollar bounty on his head and has long been on Washington's most wanted list. He is the first American charged with treason since WWII.

Gadhan was born to a Jewish family and his father converted to Christianity shortly before birth and changed the family name from Pearlman to Gadhan while they were living in Oregon. The media is reporting that Gadhan was homeschooled in southern California while living on a goat farm and converted to Islam when he was 17. He went to Pakistan in 1998 to study Islam and tt was after 9/11 that Gadhan joined al Qaeda and went for proper terrorist training at camps in Afghanistan.

While I try to post primarily on foreign affairs this really caught my eye about Illinois politics. I had read somewhere else that Lech Walesa was coming to Chicago to appear on behalf of its Tea Party movement, this is unusual so I scoped around a bit. Turns out Walesa, hero of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, is indeed coming to Chicago and it is to campaign for Adam Andrzejewski. Andrzejewski is running for Governor of Illinois and has a pretty impressive story, an authentic American success story. He has wide support among the tea parties and seems to be making a real connection with Republican voters. Andrzejewski is calling for the usual, lower taxes, anti-GOP establishment, choice in education, but he has really resonated by calling for government transparency and considering the corruption in Illinois that should be a winner! Redstate has called him "politically numinous" and believes he has a chance of winning the GOP primary. I hope he has a shot at winning the governor's office and put the ax to the corruption in Illinois, it is a race I am going to watch.

Obama Signs Pakistan Aid Bill

The $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan that its foreign minister objected has been appropriately massaged, explained, and now signed by Obama. Sen. John Kerry and CA Rep. Howard Berman said that no language in the bill was changed, but they did take the unusual step of attaching a written statement that says:

"any interpretation of this act which suggests that the United States does not fully recognize and respect the sovereignty of Pakistan would be directly contrary to congressional intent."

Full story

Can the World Live with a Nuclear Iran?

When we think of Iran having a nuclear ability most of assume the pose in Munch's The Scream. But what to do about it? Can the US afford to let Israel bomb Iran, should Obama order the American military to do the job, or is there another alternative? Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues in an editorial he wrote for the Financial Times that we can live with a nuclear Iran by using deterrence.

One alternative to a military strike would be to live with an Iranian programme. Deterrence would define such a policy. Iran would need to know that any use of nuclear weapons would meet a devastating response. It should know, too, that handing over nuclear materials to any terrorist group, such as Hamas or Hizbollah, would be discovered (given the growing expertise in nuclear forensics) and deemed no different than an Iranian use of the material. Intelligence that Iran had put its nuclear forces on alert would be met with a pre-emptive attack on those forces.

Haass makes a good argument that if Iran is attacked it immediately strengthens the hold of The Revolutionary Guard on the country. A US or Israeli attack could backfire, as Haass argues, and keep the "thugocracy" in place for years to come.

One point that Haass doesn't take up is how difficult bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities would be. Intelligence reports estimate that some of Iran's nuclear sites would require a massive aerial assault, and it would likely include the bunker busting bomb called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) the Pentagon began developing in 2007. It is a 30,000-pound bomb designed to hit targets buried 200 feet below ground and the Pentagon is building four of them. It seems unlikely that Obama will order a strike on Iran, but the Pentagon still has to be prepared for any and all eventualities.

Whatever happens in the next three months, Israel is rumored to be readying to bomb Iran in December, Iran is not going away any time soon.

Pakistan Protests US Aid

In what is probably not a first, we Americans don't pay attention to these things, Pakistanis are protesting a potential US non-military aid bill that promises $7.5 billion over five years. Not a bad package for a country that is often uncooperative with the US, threatens its neighbors, sells nuclear secrets to rogue countries, and harbors terrorists.

Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said the as of yet unsigned bill compromises his country's sovereignty and attempts to micromanage its military operations. This is key sentence in the story published on Al Jezeera English. It is the very powerful Pakistani military that objects to the language in the aid package. The US will listen, or at least pretend to, the Pakistani's because the military operates the country and most importantly holds the keys to its stockpile of 70-90 nuclear warheads.

 The Al Jazeera report states that members of Pakistan's parliament consider the aid package a "humiliating violation of sovereignty." So, exactly what is the language in the bill that has the Pakistan military and its surrogates in government in such an uproar? We don't know, but Pakistan knows how to leverage its power. Qureshi met this week with not only Sen. Kerry, but the region's Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, and National Security Adviser James Jones and laid out his concerns in plain language about the aid package and all the strings that come attached - US aid is rarely altruistic, it is always about the American best interest, which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and the Senior senator from Massachusetts said "not to worry" the bill is only being misinterpreted!

Kerry says the bill does not threaten Pakistani sovereignty and that once the US clarifies the language in the bill all will be well. Sounds like the bill is going back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a bit of "massaging" on the language, namely how to appease the Pakistani generals. Considering how Qureshi was able to quickly meet with such a wide array of top officials I am guessing there will be quite a bit of massaging.

Pakistan's military is an interesting dynamic. They hold the power over the country, government, and citizens and have for several decades now. Occasionally they allow a civilian to hold the presidency of Pakistan until they get too cozy with real democracy and then the military stages a coup and puts in one of their own. Then the cycle starts over again: the West pressures Pakistan for democratic elections, the military says we can't right now because of all the corruption those elected officials brought in, the West presses more, and finally on the verge of becoming an international pariah the military gives in and holds elections. But this seems to happen all the time in some African countries, Burma/Myanmar, and parts of Latin America, so what makes Pakistan different? It is the estimated 70-90 nuclear warheads they possess. Pakistan is a non-descript, poor Islamic country that was created by the British during Indian independence to give a home to the region's Muslims - and it is the only Muslim-majority nuclear state.

The proposed US aid package to Pakistan is a nice idea, former US ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain said it is designed to close the "trust gap" that has existed between the two countries. Pakistan's generals aren't interested in trusting the US, they want the aid with no strings attached, after all their country is key to finding the al Qaeda leaders hiding in their frontier and stopping Islamic radicals from crossing into Afghanistan to fight US forces.

Afghanistan and Dominoes

Obama's indecisiveness over Afghanistan may very well lead to a whole other slew of problems, namely in Pakistan, India, and China. One of the primary objectives for the US in Afghanistan is to not only destroy al Qaeda hideouts, and the Taliban's, but to stabilize its border with Pakistan. Pakistan is facing a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda in its own frontier provinces that threaten to topple not only the government, but send its nuclear weapons into unfriendly hands. India and China have the most to lose in this scenario. China's Uighur-dominated Western provinces were scenes of unrest in early 2009. India has had tense relations with Pakistan for decades and the thought of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamic radicals will send the Hindu-dominated country into hair-trigger nuclear alert.

This public agony over what should be US strategic objectives in Afghanistan is a kick in the gut for US troops and red meat to those who perceive Obama as a traditional Democrat, i.e. weak on military and strategic stability, and figure the war is lost and start planning for the future. Robert Kagan at The Atlantic writes today:

The Afghan people have survived three decades of war by hedging their bets. Now, watching a young and inexperienced American president appear to waiver on his commitment to their country, they are deciding, at the level of both the individual and the mass, whether to make their peace with the Taliban—even as the Taliban itself can only take solace and encouragement from Obama's public agonizing. Meanwhile, fundamentalist elements of the Pakistani military, opposed to the recent crackdown against local Taliban, are also taking heart from developments in Washington.

Rethinking your war strategy, the one you called "the good war" on the campaign trail, is debilitating to all involved right now.