Wednesday, January 20, 2010


I say spin mode.

David Axelrod is an unrepentant elitist "progressive" cynic who, like BOZ and Emanuel, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Frank, and Dodd (OK, OK... I know the post would begin to look like a Book of Genesis chapter if I listed them all, but you get the idea) doesn't give a rat's backside what the people really want. I believe he knows FULL FLIPPIN WELL just how angry voters really are AT HIS BOSS and is presently at a loss on how to cope with it, though there are indications that he'll have BOZ go NASTY now that Scott Brown has won. See Left Coast Rebel

David: If you wind up reading this admittedly obscure blog, take away this simple message from it:


From Politico

"We're going to keep on advocating for the things that we believe are necessary to get this economy moving again, to get people back to work, to lift incomes, to get people more economic security. We will work with whomever wants to work with us to get that done, and I think that's what the American people want. ... We're FAMILIAR with the vote that was cast today: Some of the same sentiment that propelled [Brown's] campaign, propelled ours -- the sense that this economy doesn't work particularly well for middle class, working people ... You overlay the fact that we're in a recession -- the deepest since the Great Depression -- and people are understandably agitated. There is a restiveness -- and I think it's been intensified by the economy and by the recession -- that is real. There were many factors that were peculiar to this race, ... and let's give Brown his due: He ran a spectacular campaign. ... The lesson is to focus very clearly on the concerns -- particularly the economic concerns -- of everyday people. And those concerns go to jobs. Those concerns go to retirement security. They go to the cost of education kids. And, yes, they go to the cost of health care, too. ... I think that it would a terrible mistake to walk away now. If we don't pass the bill, all we have is the stigma of a caricature that was put on it. That would be the worst result for everybody who has supported this bill."

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Haiti, A Test Case for The Emanuel Doctrine?

As OBAMA'S domestic support collapses in metaphoric rubble akin to the very real rubble facing the survivors in Port au Prince and as his agenda is widely rejected at home with plummeting poll numbers and the likely humiliating defeat of yet another fellow elitist "progressive" democrat Martha Coakley by a formerly complete unknown Republican state senator Scott Brown in a special election today to fill the U.S. senate seat f/k/a as Teddy Kennedy's and n/k/a the "People's Seat" in Massachusetts, it appears that BOZ, desperate for a major bump in the polls, has now converted the 2008 campaign advice - Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste - of his CoS, Chicago THUG extraordinaire Rahm Emanuel, into his Foreign Policy Doctrine. Obama's Solution: OCCUPY HAITI!

From the Times of London

US accused of 'occupying' Haiti as troops flood in

France accused the US of "occupying" Haiti on Monday as thousands of American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid efforts and security.

By Aislinn Laing, and Tom Leonard in Port-au-Prince.

The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to "clarify" the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.

Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport's control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.

"This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti," Mr Joyandet said.

Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers.

But US commanders insisted their forces' focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN.

The diplomatic row came amid heightened frustrations that hundreds of tons of aid was still not getting through. Charities reported violence was also worsening as desperate Haitians took matters into their own hands.

The death toll is now estimated at up to 200,000 lives. Around three million Haitians – a third of the country's population – have been affected by Tuesday's earthquake and two million require food assistance.

While food and water was gradually arriving at the makeshift camps which have sprung up around the city, riots have broken out in other areas where supplies have still not materialised.

Haiti was occupied by the US between 1915 and 1935, and historical sensitivities together with friction with other countries over the relief effort has made the Americans cautious about their role in the operation.

American military commanders have repeatedly stressed that they are not entering the country as an occupying force.

US soldiers in Port-au-Prince said they had been told to be discreet about how they carry their M4 assault rifles.

A paratrooper sergeant said they were authorised to use "deadly force" if they see anyone's life in danger but only as a "last resort".

Capt John Kirby, a spokesman for the joint task force at the airport, said the US recognised it was only one of a number of countries contributing to a UN-led mission.

He also emphasised the US troops, which he said would rise to 10,000 by Wednesday would principally be assisting in humanitarian relief and the evacuation of people needing medical attention.

The main responsibility for security rests with the UN, which is to add a further 3,000 troops to its force of 9,000.

However, it was agreed on Sunday night that the Americans would take over security at the four main food and water distribution points being set up in the city, Capt Kirby said.

"Security here is in a fluid situation," he said. "If the Haitian government asked us to provide security downtown, we would do that." He played down the threat of violence, saying: "What we're seeing is that there are isolated incidents of violence and some pockets where it's been more restive, but overall it's calm."

Monday, January 18, 2010


UPDATE: James, penning The Reaganite Republican, has a great round-up on bloggers covering the Brown v. Coakley race.

Fully a year after George Bush left office, Democrats continue to play pin the blame on Bush for all that ails us now. And the Democrat base, as represented by retired school teacher
Rosemary Kverek, continues to exhibit its propensity for very poor reasoning (as well as basic math) skills on precisely who's at fault for the economic morass in which we find ourselves today. Not to be out-shined by former teacher Ms. Kverek in the blame game, Ted Kennedy's son, Patrick (D-RI) appears to think that the Democrats should spend even more time blaming Bush and the Republicans for Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's collusive criminality with the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac Ponzi scheme. From Hotline OnCall, comes this piece:

After Obama Rally, Dems Pin Blame On Bush

By Felicia Sonmez

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha CoakleyGeorge W. Bush.
(D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person --

"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.

"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."

(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.")

More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."

Blaming their problems on Bush does carry a risk for Dems, however -- with their sights so firmly focused on the past, Brown's campaign has managed to wrest the "change" mantle from them.

Meanwhile, even as Kennedy took on both Bush and Brown head-on, some attendees were more muted in their criticism of Brown.

"I mean, he is handsome," Christine DiPitro, 61, of Malden, said of Brown.

"He does appeal to the regular guy with his truck, but that's about all."

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

From American Thinker: Iran and Its Revolutions

Below follows an extremely interesting and thoughtful piece on the anti-regime protests in Iran, and the potential consequences to the West if our leadership, particularly the Boz, continues its listless approach in dealing with the monsters of Qom. I know the author personally; he knows all to well what of he writes.

Iran and Its Revolutions

By K.M.Mehrdad, PhD
In the past weeks, the most sacred symbols of Iran's '79 Revolution -- namely its flag and its founding father, Ayatollah Khomeini -- have come under direct attack. Given that the regime views these acts as warranting death, the demonstrators' ultimate goal can be no less than a regime change.

Since 1979, Iran has endured a brutal theocracy, renowned for corruption, abuse of women and minorities, and second only to China in the number of people it executes. Despite record-high oil revenues, the theocracy has devastated the economy. Iran suffers from severe stagflation, a brain-drain, and under-producing industries. Consequently, a young person's only hope is to escape Iran at the first opportunity, despite lacking savings or a passport (to which few countries issue visas) and carrying currency worth less than one percent of its value in 1979.

As a way out of its desperation, traditional Iranian society now faces some of the world's highest rates of drug abuse and prostitution. Yet the country's resources go to enrich the clerical state, its revolutionary guards, and its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, among others. To add insult to injury, the regime denigrates Iranians' sense of pride in their ancient history by systematically attacking the country's pre-Islamic culture and symbols of nationalism in order to impose its own religious identity.

After decades of enduring this physical and psychological assault, people have poured into the streets to show Iran's true face to the world: non-extremist, tending towards secular government, westward-leaning, focused internally rather than on the conflicts plaguing the Middle East, and longing to rejoin the community of nations.

However, short of a miracle, the Iranians' costly struggle for democracy is not likely to bear fruit. In 1979, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, a feeble monarch who detested confrontation, led Iran. The Shah was besieged by Ayatollah Khomeini -- an implacable, charismatic religious leader who had successfully brought disparate opposition groups under one umbrella. A large number of Iranians studying abroad actively supported Khomeini. Moreover, through his "human rights" policy, President Jimmy Carter had pressured and demoralized the Shah into further passivity, until the Shah finally fled Iran instead of defending his regime.

Indeed, months before the Shah's departure, Washington was in touch with the opposition to facilitate the impending transfer of power. In the end, the demonstrations against the Shah were highly organized and well-directed. Many demonstrators, who missed work or had gone on strike to back the Ayatollah, were financially compensated by Khomeini and his bazaari supporters.

Today, the demonstrators go it alone, and they have no means of defending themselves against the regime's armed thugs. Moussavi, the movement's nominal leader, confirms the clerical establishment rather than denouncing it.

Little support for those who oppose the current government comes from Iranian expatriates, particularly those in academia and related fields. This is because a majority of these expatriates once agitated against the Shah. They find it convenient to indirectly support the current regime rather than call for its ouster (and be reminded of how their own zeal helped put the present regime into power in the first place). Through ties with other academics, these groups work hard to preserve Iran's clerical theocracy.

No support is forthcoming from Washington, either. Not only is tangible aid denied, but U.S.-based human rights groups focusing on Iran are having their funds cut by an administration anxious to placate the regime. Finally, unlike in 1979, the demonstrators face a state that will resort to maximum force to maintain power. The current regime in Iran enjoys strong backing from Russia and China. Unless this status quo is altered, there is little room for optimism.

Yet the situation may not be hopeless. By opening a channel of communication to the demonstrators and providing them moral and material support, the movement may be able to sustain itself, allow for leadership to emerge, and become organized.

Suggesting that any foreign support for the demonstrators will be used as an excuse to discredit and further brutalize the citizens of Iran is an excuse for inaction. In spite of the fact that there has been very little foreign assistance to the demonstrators in Iran, the entire uprising is still being blamed on the West.

Irrespective of international pressure, the Iranian regime will do what it must to preserve itself; the excuses it uses in the process are immaterial.

But with our help, millions of Iranian citizens could rise in protest. Discrediting them would not be easy, at least not for such a regime as this. On the contrary, demonstrations will grow in size when the silent majority becomes convinced that outside support is genuine and will not be withdrawn due to some backdoor agreement with Tehran.

Putting into effect a well-planned and well-executed policy of tightening the economic screws on the regime and preventing it from exporting oil should be the next steps. Simultaneously, there must be a willingness to strongly consider any plan, short of landing troops, which will eliminate the regime's largest and most active nuclear sites. Adopting policies that fall short of these steps is unlikely to exert serious and effective pressure on the regime, much less undermine it.

The fact that the regular army has not yet been deployed against the demonstrators indicates that the Iranian leadership fears that the army might side with the opposition.

Should the beleaguered regime consent to a U.S.-brokered compromise on nuclear issues, its only aim would be to buy time and reconsolidate power. To believe otherwise is extremely naïve. The Islamic Republic views the possession of nuclear weapons as the sole guarantor for its survival and ability to expand regional influence. Under no circumstances will it give up its quest to obtain a nuclear arsenal. It is about time we understood this.

President Obama faces a unique opportunity, where the forces favoring regime change are in alignment. These include a sizable majority of Iranians, as well as the Persian Gulf states and America's Western allies. A regime change in Iran would not only resolve the current nuclear impasse, but it would also deal a blow to extremism worldwide by recasting Iran as a reasonable actor. Unless Iranians are given a chance to select their regime through a legally monitored national referendum, the Middle East will remain in turmoil. Only those supporting the regime would lose from a referendum.

If the world continues to ignore the aspirations for freedom of the people of Iran, there will be grave consequences: the rise of a nuclear Islamic Republic that is more radicalized, repressive, and emboldened by a sense of impunity. A nuclear Iran would likely form an even closer alliance with Moscow, allowing the latter a base in the Gulf of Oman or the Persian Gulf.

Having lost the trust of its own people, Iran will move to compensate for that loss through policies that appeal to the disillusioned and more radical elements in the region. Even greater human rights abuses in Iran, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and continuation of the regime's disruptive presence in Latin America could be some of the side effects.

Resorting to the routine invocation of the specter of neo-con philosophy to prevent any foreign policy action that goes beyond continuous talking will only hasten the advent of an equally (if not more) problematic neo-lib viewpoint. Iraq taught us what not to do; it did not teach us not to do anything. Modern history is replete with examples of great efforts to protect people and nations from inhuman regimes, and accomplishing such goals is never without cost.

In the wake of the Iraq war, however, as in the post-Vietnam era, a sentiment seems to have permeated the establishment and most opinion-makers that contributes to an apparent decision-making paralysis towards exigent foreign policy concerns. This situation is exacerbated by inflated hypothetical writings that constantly trumpet the Islamic Republic's military prowess, while projecting an apocalyptic image of what will happen if any hard action is taken against it. Likewise, regime sympathizers try frightening the U.S. by evoking the bizarre conceit that a worse entity could replace this one.

Those who fear the retaliatory actions of the Islamic Republic, such as its indiscriminately attacking foreign targets, will do well to remember that delaying the inevitable only results in greater costs and losses. More infamous now than ever, the regime is in internal dispute, economically weak, and under siege. The likely outcome of such a backlash would be to further delegitimize it, precipitate even greater unity among its external opponents, erode its internal controls over the nation, and accelerate its collapse. The stakes are too high too allow for inaction, and the opportunities too unique.

Adhering to one-sided and defeatist viewpoints while betting the house on a promissory signature that Tehran will halt uranium enrichment will be a parody of real policy with irreparable consequences.

K. M. Mehrdad, Ph.D. is an academic and author of an upcoming book on policy formulation and execution in Iran.