On Friday I noted this column by Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times. Rather than rebuke the president for his speech in Israel comparing those who sought to appease Hitler with those who would now appease terrorist groups and their sponsors, Ramsey defended Chamberlain's appeasement outright:

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

Ramsey has since written a follow-up post in which he laments that his reinterpretation of the events at Munich "inflamed a few hundred people." He also complains about the "Internet jeering section that considers [his] a weakling's argument." Yet, in a display of unabashed weakness, he also appeased his critics by rewriting the offending paragraph. His editors do not note the change, but the piece now reads:

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

It would seem there's a built-in advantage to arguing against those who favor appeasement--they'll roll over for anybody. Hitler, Ahmadinejad, right-wing bloggers, it doesn't matter. Just make your demands and Ramsey stands ready to submit.

HT: AoS

Barack Obama continued to display his surprisingly flimsy grasp of American history yesterday. “This whole notion of not talking to people,” began the longtime community organizer. “It didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s ... When Kennedy met with (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

There’s only one problem with this analysis – Khrushchev and Kennedy met in the first months of Kennedy’s term. The Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t happen until 16 months later. Furthermore, if we really want to dig into the history, many historians believe that the Vienna Summit between the two leaders did much to trigger the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev, relying on the Bay of Pigs fiasco and what he later saw at Vienna, determined that his American counterpart was a weak sister who could be bullied.

Since Obama obviously knows nothing about the Vienna Summit, he surely doesn’t know that in some circles it’s viewed as a cautionary tale regarding the inherent risks of diplomacy with malevolent regimes (or “talking to people” as Obama prefers to think of such activities). Besides, Kennedy at Vienna was quite frankly a much tougher and more hard-headed leader than one can imagine Obama being. At one point, Kennedy responded to Khrushchev’s blustering by declaring, “Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold, long winter.”

More on point, what are we to make of Obama’s ignorance regarding relevant historical events? Mind you, these are historical events that he chooses to talk about. I realize the senator is the victim of an Ivy League education, but he’s had decades to repair that damage.

Truth be told, in yesterday’s comments, Obama showed trademark characteristics of a callow, young Ivy League grad – he thinks he knows more than he does, and has the audacity to lecture others when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama seems perversely intent on transporting an old adage regarding Harvard over to the Crimson’s law school: “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.”

A few exit questions for you to mull:

1) Seriously, Obama’s a bright guy – how is it possible that he doesn’t know such basic facts of American history?

2) Is there any chance Obama really isn’t so ignorant but instead misrepresents historical events to better suit his political arguments? (I doubt it, but I figured I’d put it out there.)

3) Every time Obama opens his mouth, there’s a chance he’ll let loose a whopper like yesterday’s. Will Obama say something so foolish before this campaign’s end that it will dwarf all previous political blunders?

HT: Hugh Hewitt

Here's the transcript:

CNN'S DANA BASH: "You remember these interviews were done shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Lou, the McCain campaign just in the past couple of hours, found a link to more of Jamie Rubin's interview from back then. In it, I'll read you a quote from the rest of or at least more of the interview, In that quote Sen. McCain says, 'I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.' Now the McCain campaign, as you can image, says that this is proof that Senator McCain has been consistent all along, and I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him."

CNN'S LOU DOBBS: "Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying."

Yes, it does seem to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying. Rubin initially claimed that McCain "was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government." But the full transcript shows that any business with Hamas was contingent on Hamas meeting certain conditions, i.e. renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is no different than his position today.

Rubin now offers a pathetic defense of his smear at the Huffington Post, complete with the exculpatory response from McCain that engagement would depend on Hamas, not the United States. But does anyone believe that he had not seen the full transcript before writing his piece in the Post? Or that the paper's editors would have allowed him to publish this smear if they'd seen the full transcript themselves? The Post got hoodwinked, and they must be furious. It's hard to imagine they don't rebuke Rubin with a prominent correction in tomorrow's paper.

Bruce Ramsey writes in defense of appeasement at the Seattle Times:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

Appeasement is the attempt to placate an implacable foe, but Obama doesn't seem to think that Iran is implacable. He must think that the Iranians are reasonable people with reasonable demands, otherwise what would be the purpose of sitting down to talk with Ahmadinejad? And as he told David Brooks today, he thinks Hamas has "legitimate claims." Surely when Obama addresses those claims they will renounce violence and live peaceably with their Israeli neighbors. As will Hezbollah when Obama addresses their reasonable demands for "electoral reform" and "a fair distribution of services."

Once you see the demands of tyrants and terrorists as legitimate and not altogether unreasonable, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to assuring peace in our time.

HT: Ace

On May 15, a convoy transporting two Iranian diplomats was ambushed as it traveled to "a revered Shiite shrine" in the western Baghdad district of Kadimiyah. The two Iranian diplomats and "an Iranian and an Iraqi administrative employee" were wounded in the ambush, the AP reported. Iran's foreign minister accused the United States of staging the attack, but the U.S. military has denied any involvement. The U.S. military also stated four Iranians were wounded in the attack, not three.

The ambush, curiously enough, happened on the same day that Multinational Forces Iraq said it believes the fighting with the Iranian-backed Special Groups has shifted to western Baghdad to deflect attention from Sadr City.

The attack on the Iranians raises questions: were these legitimate diplomats traveling to a Shia Shrine in Kadimiyah, where an uptick of attacks by the Mahdi Army is occurring? Or were these Qods Forces agents using diplomatic cover to mask their movements? Were the Iranians in western Baghdad to help direct attacks by the Mahdi Army and Special Groups against U.S. and Iraqi forces?

The U.S. military has called Iran on using its diplomatic corps as a front for the activity for the Qods Force. In October 2007, General David Petraeus openly accused Iran's Ambassador to Iraq of being a Qods Force officer.

Iran has repeatedly used diplomatic covers for its intelligence agents sent into Iraq. Iran maintains that Mahmud Farhadi, a senior Qods Force officer captured in Sulimaniyah on September 20, was a deputy governor on a diplomatic trade mission to the Kurdish Regional Government. The U.S. military has positively identified Farhadi as the commander of the Zafr Command, one of three units subordinate to the Ramazan Corps, the Qods Force operational command for Iraq.

In January 2007, U.S. forces captured five Qods Force officers in Irbil. The Iranian government still maintains the men were consular officials. The "Irbil Five" are still in U.S. custody.

Paul Maslin, a respected Democratic pollster who worked for Howard Dean in 2004 and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign in 2008, posts this thoughtful analysis about how Barack Obama gets the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House in November. Maslin’s analysis relies less on current polling than past voter trends and his own instincts. I agree with many of his conclusions.

First, he argues that about 17 states fall outside of the red or blue “mortal lock.” Maslin believes Obama begins with a base of 157 electoral votes from 11 states and DC. Of the 17 swing states, six are “must win” according to his analysis (electoral votes in parentheses): Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21) and Washington (11). A few of these states, however, are clearly problematic for Obama versus John McCain. The Illinois Senator is going to have to do better with white, working class voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania in order to keep them in the Democratic column. Maslin notes, and I agree, that Pennsylvania is a tougher environment than Michigan. That’s why I also agree with Fred Barnes that Ed Rendell is a strong name to put on the ticket as vice president.

If Obama prevails in the six “must-win,” he’s up to 238 electoral votes. The next 32 become even tougher. Two southern states top Maslin’s list of possibilities: Virginia (13) and North Carolina (15). But if Obama wins those two states, he’ll likely top 300 electoral votes in my opinion. Maslin agrees that winning these two southern states is a big challenge. If Obama picks Virginia Senator Jim Webb as his running mate, that might help. But Obama may also need to pick a VP from Pennsylvania or Ohio to lock down those states. Too bad he can’t have multiple running mates.

Moving west of the Mississippi, Colorado (9), Nevada (5) New Mexico (5), Iowa (7) and Missouri (11) are also in play.

Finally, Florida (27), Ohio (20), New Hampshire (4) and Wisconsin (10) are also all on Maslin’s swing list.

The permutations at this point are endless. Maslin believes Obama’s best hope is to spread McCain’s financial resources so thin he can’t effectively compete in a high number of swing states. We’ll see. This is where the combined money raising ability of the RNC along with the McCain campaign may make the financial disparity with Obama look less daunting later this year.

Recent actions by Senate Democrats put the lie to the claim that they want to wean the U.S. off our dependence on foreign oil. Yesterday, in a strict party-line vote, Senate Democrats defeated an amendment to lift a moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado:

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.

That followed by a day in which Senate Democrats attempted to bludgeon Saudi Arabia into selling us more oil. So at least they recognize that we need more oil supply, it's just that they want it to come from foreign sources.

HT: Instapundit

This would be an awfully narrow win:

Clinton 45%
Obama 50%
Undecided 5%

According to the Real Clear Politics summary, Obama has led by 20, 14, and 12 in the most recent polls. And the American Research Group poll released today is not a victim of small sample size, at least: It's a poll of 600 likely primary voters.

The Orgeon primary is next Tuesday -- the same day as the Kentucky primary. If Hillary wins Kentucky solidly, while Obama underperforms in Oregon, it will give new life to questions about Obama's general election chances. He better hope this is a blip.

Jennifer Rubin has a good suggestion for McCain:

But chances are that there will be an even larger Democratic Congressional majority come next year. One consequence of this very safe projection might be that McCain will start running on that old crowd-pleaser, divided government. The prospect of a large Democratic Congressional majority unchecked by the power of the veto pen and free to pass all types of bills (from tax increases to abolishing secret ballot union elections to immigration reform devoid of border control measures) might make voters think twice about giving Democrats both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. And Congress currently has an approval rating even worse President Bush’s. So why not run against the Democratic Congress?

With a Democratic-controlled Congress now trading above 90 percent at Intrade, both candidates will need to answer where they stand on the priorities of the Democratic leadership of Congress (such as their planned bridge to the 1930s). An added benefit for McCain is that this will help shift the context of the election, so it is no longer primarily a referendum on 8 years of President Bush, but also on the plans of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

And there's little doubt that Barack Obama is more attractive by himself than as the last barrier to enactment of the liberal Congressional agenda.

From the New York Times: Obama Admires Bush, by David Brooks.

From the Wall Street Journal: Flirting With Disaster, by John Fund.

From the Times: Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer, by Gerard Baker.

From Pajamas Media: How Iran is Killing U.S. Troops, by Bob Owens.

From the Washington Post: McCain's Age, by Chris Cillizza.

Via Exurban League: Barack Chamberlain.

Obviously at the heart of yesterday’s little tussle over the president’s speech in Israel was the question of whether or not Barack Obama is tough enough to be president. This meme has been bubbling for a while. Even the New York Times’ Bob Herbert suggested that Obama was a wimp (in so many words) a few weeks ago. It thus comes as little surprise that Obama is now hurriedly assuring the electorate that he’s plenty tough enough to be president.

In a speech this morning, Obama used the phrase “Bush and John McCain” a dozen times. Marc Ambinder reports that Obama really got into the ritualistic Bush-bashing: “Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing.”

On a more substantive level, Obama engaged in an apparently extended conversation with David Brooks earlier in the week to flesh out his foreign policy philosophy. Acting in full post-partisan mode and attempting to prove his seriousness, Obama professed great admiration for the foreign policy stylings of the first Bush administration:

“I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm.”

This little Obama observation illustrates two key facets of his personality. Whenever he discusses recent history, Obama seems to rely on the Cliff’s Notes version. In this instance, Gulf War = Good; Obama doesn’t go any deeper. He certainly doesn’t come across as a guy who has habitually thought about history’s relevance to today’s events for any length of time.

It doesn’t take a particularly nuanced or sophisticated understanding of Desert Storm to conclude that the administration handled the war’s endgame very sloppily. Earlier in the article, Brooks remarked on how Obama seemed quite well-informed on Lebanon. I don’t doubt it. He’s a serious and intelligent guy. But his views of historical events, whether they involve FDR’s purported negotiations with Hitler or Desert Storm, are surprisingly simplistic for such a thoughtful candidate.

His admiration for the Bush 41 is also pregnant with implications. The big debate regarding Obama is whether he’ll be a transformational president or just another incrementalist. Obviously, the former prospect frightens conservatives and delights liberals. Having seen Obama’s campaign, I don’t find any evidence of a fellow prone to bold actions.

Given his liberal instincts, that’s good. The biggest foreign policy fear on the right is that a Democratic president will run around doing imprudent things like meeting with Ahmadenijad and precipitously pulling out of Iraq, heedless of the consequences. Obama gave himself wiggle room to revisit his Iraq policy upon his inauguration weeks ago, and days ago he abandoned his misguided summit plans.

All these changes beg one very serious question: What exactly will an Obama foreign policy look like? Really, no one knows. Its composition changed dramatically just this past weekend, and it will likely “evolve” still more in the future as he offers carefully thought through policies rather than visceral reactions at YouTube debates.

Yes, the fact that Obama hadn’t settled on a foreign policy vision before he ran for president and still hasn’t 18 months later is disconcerting. Given the direction in which he’s moving, it’s surprising the left remains so sanguine over its candidate’s progress.

Mark Ambinder is reporting that the White House sought to "get" Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama, in George W. Bush's speech yesterday. He's wrong. What Ed Gillespie actually said was that the White House anticipated that the passage in question might be interpreted as an attack on Carter, not that the White House intended it as such.

And later, when Gillespie was asked this question directly, he said that the White House went so far as to change the language so as to avoid targeting Carter.

Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --

MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual.

This is typical -- both of the White House and the reporters who cover it. The White House needn't have changed a thing in the president's remarks. Jimmy Carter met with Hamas. Barack Obama has advocated direct meetings, without preconditions, with individuals who head terrorist states. As far as I'm concerned, the president could have named them both and would have been well within his rights to do so. The setting, an address to the Knesset on the 60th Anniversary of Israel's founding, would have made such a comment inappropriate. But he would have be right on the substance.

Despite the plain language of Bush's speech and Gillespie's statement, reporters cannot wrench themselves away from the narrative -- largely false in my view -- that this White House routinely trashes its opponents unfairly.

UPDATE: Ambinder provides more context in this post, in which he cites two White House reporters who say White House officials have named Obama and Carter in background interviews. That's not what Gillespie said but it's interesting nonetheless. I guess my takeaway is that Bush should have done this on the record in a different setting. It's a fight he wins just by having it -- but the White House isn't up for much fighting these days.

Obama responds to Bush and McCain:

"That was frustrating enough," he said of Bush's words. "Then John McCain gives a speech. He gave a speech in the morning where he talked about the need for civility in our politics. He talked about elevating the tone in our country.... Not an hour later, he turned around and embraced George Bush's attacks on Democrats. He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn’t fit to protect this nation that I love."

McCain "accused me of not being fit to protect this nation – a nation my grandfather served in World War II– a nation that’s given me everything that I have," Obama said, then pivoted to attack Bush and McCain on a series of issues: Iraq; the survival of Osama bin Laden's and the Al Qaeda's leadership; Iran's strength; and Hamas's and Hezbollah's ascendancy.

My great uncle killed a lot of Germans, and I have the war trophies to prove it. I'm not sure that makes me uniquely qualified to protect this country. It's odd that Obama continually defends himself using the politics of association, while at the same time condemning those who would attack him based on his associations with people like Rev. Wright. Obama's father was communist, but he didn't get to choose his father, or his grandfather. And their politics have little bearing on his own. But he did choose to associate with people like Robert Malley who would attempt to appease Hamas. And he hung around with Bill Ayers, who clearly does not love this nation. Those associations would seem far more relevant than his grandfather's service in the Second World War.

And for the record, Hamas and Hezbollah are both ascendant because Israel implemented the kind of policies that Obama advocates for this country: unilateral withdrawal in the face of terrorism. If Israel had stayed in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would not be in control of those respective territories. Why does Obama expect a different result when he unilaterally withdraws U.S. forces from Iraq?

That didn't take long. The video of McCain on the same day, in the same clothes, and saying basically the same thing, although this time in a way that some dishonest lefty like Rubin can't possibly twist it to make it sound different. The other video can be seen here, still being touted by HuffPo as evidence that "McCain was for talking to Hamas before he was against it." McCain couldn't be more clear in this video, which couldn't have been shot more than a few minutes before or after the interview with Rubin, that he would only talk to Hamas when certain conditions were met.

Does the left reinterpret McCain's interview with Rubin now that new information has come to light? I'm betting no.

James Rubin argues that it's McCain who's really soft on Hamas:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

'One way or another' could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Rubin interprets it as meaning that McCain would recognize and negotiate with Hamas, but all the other statements McCain made around that time would indicate otherwise. Knowing what we do about McCain, and reading his other statements from the time, it's pretty hard to imagine he was arguing here for unconditional talks with the group. It's rather easier to imagine he's offering talks contingent on a bunch of things Hamas will never do (one way), or allowing the Israelis to do as they please (or another).

Rubin also says that, "By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel." Actually, Hamas said they're rooting for Obama. McCain didn't suggest this out of nowhere--he didn't suggest it at all. It's a fact. Hamas is voting Obama way.

As for the suggestion that Obama is weak on national security and soft on Israel, it isn't just coming from McCain--it's coming from all quarters, including the Clinton camp. In contrast, nobody except James Rubin thinks that McCain is soft on Israel--and it's quite clear that even he doesn't really believe that.

This piece did prompt Marc Ambinder to write:

To preserve the standard of intellectual honesty, for starters, McCain needs to explain the difference between Hamas and Iran and why he is open to accepting the legitimacy of the one, but not the other; or he must explain why he did not say what it appears he had said...

Shouldn't Obama be the one to explain the difference between Hamas and Iran? Even if one were to assume that McCain was pushing for unconditional diplomatic relations with the Hamas in this 2006 quote (and that's obviously not the case), it is Obama who accepts the legitimacy of one and not the other. Obama would meet with A'jad and not Hamas, but no one can explain why--and Obama has never tried. If Hamas takes over the PA by force, will Obama meet with its leaders? Or if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon, will Obama meet with that group's leaders leaders? We don't know, but because Obama is willing to sit down with any regime, no matter how odious, we must assume the answer is yes. But these are questions Ambinder and the rest seem to have little interest in answering. Instead they want McCain to explain why he's soft on Israel.

A key House Committee has approved legislation that addresses the controversial tanker contract awarded by the Air Force to an EADS consortium, instead of a rival Boeing bid. But the legislation leaves the status quo in place -- at least for now:

House defense authorizers are directing the Air Force to review whether illegal government subsidies played any role in a contentious refueling tanker contract...

However, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) offered a caveat in his chairman’s mark: Any inquiry would be done after the World Trade Organization (WTO) delivered its rulings on trade disputes between the United States and the European Union over illegal subsidies to Airbus and tax breaks for Boeing . The two bitter rivals on the world’s commercial aircraft market are also at the center of the tanker controversy...

Based on what the WTO finds in either case, the Air Force Secretary would have 90 days from the rulings to conduct a review, allowing time for public comment on the effect of illegal subsidies on the program, for consultation with federal government experts, and to speak with officials at both the Northrop Grumman-EADS team and Boeing.

If the Air Force determines the illegal subsidy had a “material impact” that calls into question the “fairness” of the contract award, the service leaders have the right to take “appropriate measures” to remove the impact of the illegal subsidy and make the process “fair to all,” according to the legislative language in the chairman’s mark.

The legislation leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force how to make the outcome 'fair to all.' Further, it's not clear when the World Trade Organization will rule on the subsidy question, but the decision may not come for several months. In the interim, the Air Force is not prohibited from going forward with the contract.

That said, if the World Trade Organization does rule against the European Union, and determines that launch subsidies gave EADS an unfair advantage, expect a new round of lobbying to undo the deal, assuming that it's not already too far down the road.

This is a surprise:

"Based on our careful and comprehensive forensic examination of each of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits and on consideration of all the evidence reviewed by our experts, Interpol concludes that there was no tampering with any data on the computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities," Interpol secretary general Ronald Noble said...

Earlier Thursday US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that reports on the contents of the computer that indicate Venezuela's support for FARC are "highly disturbing."

"The picture painted by some of the preliminary reports that I have seen over the last few days is disturbing, highly disturbing," he said.

"There are serious allegations about Venezuela supplying arms and support to a terrorist organization," McCormack told reporters.

Interpol had been expected to balk on the question of whether the captured laptops and hard drives were genuine. All of the nations involved -- the U.S., Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and others -- had been waiting for Interpol to comment on the authenticity of the files. That impartial agency has now said that they are legitimate -- which means that Hugo Chavez has been working to upgrade FARC's weapons and influence. The U.S. will now have to consider whether to designate Venezuela a state sponsor of terror.

That's easier said than done, and any decision is likely to be made in discussion with U.S. allies (who would also be asked to apply sanctions). However, there's no question that this is bad news for Hugo Chavez and his allies.

Hopefully the Senate will remember that our troops deserve to be armed, fed, and paid:

The House voted 141-149, with 132 Republicans voting present, to reject the war funding portion of the supplemental spending bill. The vote means the Senate will have to add the money to the bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee was marking up its version of the measure later Thursday.

House Republicans withheld their votes for the war funding amendment to the bill (HR 2642) in a bid to force Democrats to come up with enough votes to adopt the funds. But a majority of Democrats voted against the war funding.

House Republicans have called for clean legislation to fund the wars, instead of the Christmas tree legislation that Democrats sent to the floor. The Senate is unlikely to approve a clean bill, either. Meanwhile, Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mullen says the funding must be provided within days, or the Pentagon will be forced to begin sending layoff notices.

In the wake of President Bush’s speech to the Knesset yesterday in which he criticized those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” as delusional types who seek the “false comfort of appeasement,” many on the left have had a meltdown. They’ve been so vituperative, one would have thought it was still last week, way back when the left's presumptive nominee Barack Obama supported meeting face-to-face with radical terror supporter Mahmoud Ahmadenijad (not to mention an additional rogue’s gallery of the world’s worst leaders, all within his first year in office).

The normally thoughtful and intelligent Josh Marshall commented,

In case you hadn't heard yet, the president attacked Sen. Obama as a terrorist coddler on the order of the late 30s Nazi-appeasers in a speech before the Israeli Knesset.

As the president who's probably done more to damage this country than any in 150 years, I can't say I'm exactly surprised that he'd do this. But it really was disgusting, even for him.

What's he talking about? Everyone knows Obama doesn't support meeting with radicals and terror supporters. This week anyway. Liberal talkmeister Taylor Marsh chimed in:

Will this ever end? George W. Bush, the most incompetent, bumbling, stubborn president talking about Democrats as if we are traitors? There isn't a political woman or man alive who could get through the political system who could either offer to "negotiate with terrorists", or sell Israel down the river. But bringing up the Hitler analogy is going some even for Bush.

After apologizing for his rash use of a barnyard epithet to attack the president’s speech, perennially eloquent and thoughtful Senator Joe Biden offered some vintage Democratic whine.

Biden again did not mince words when discussing Bush's remarks, accusing the president of engaging in "long-distance swiftboating" with his speech in Israel. Biden also cited numerous examples of the Bush Administration reaching out to unfriendly regimes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, arguing that Bush's insinuation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was "truly delusional ... and truly disgraceful."

As for Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer, one could almost sense him stamping his little virtual feet as he wrote:

I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.
But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible…

Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name.

It’s nice to see that the idea of sitting down for a confab with Ahmadenijad no longer has a seat at the table of intelligent ideas. But someone better break the news gently to the Atlantic Monthly’s Matthew Yglesias who lionized Obama’s freshly abandoned plans in this month’s hot-off-the-presses issue:

At the YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked whether he would be willing to meet “without precondition … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” the right answer, conventionally speaking, was a qualified “no.” But Obama answered in the affirmative. Initially, even sympathetic observers like The Nation’s David Corn called this statement a “flub” at best…

Obama’s team did not try to qualify (or, in political parlance, “clarify”) his remark, and no one said he misspoke… Soon, on the stump, he was regularly referring to his willingness to meet with foreign leaders, unlike other top presidential candidates.

As President Bush’s speech today continues to cause the Democratic party to spiral into spluttering, expletive-spewing fury, it’s worth taking a step back for a moment and asking what the reaction of the Israelis seated at the Knesset was to the supposedly controversial remarks. Were they shocked and outraged? Did they think it was, as Senator Biden so eloquently put it, “malarkey”--or a partisan attack on Barack Obama?

Not so much it appears. Check out the video.

The response from the Israeli parliamentarians, as Joe Lieberman pointed out a few hours ago on Fox, wasn’t shock, but hearty applause. Perhaps that’s because they agree with what President Bush said--which, after all, is something that every American President, Democrat and Republican, since World War II has similarly recognized: it’s a very, very bad idea for democracies to negotiate with terrorists, or to appease fanatical dictatorial regimes.

Would that the presumptive Democratic nominee and his proxies felt the same way…

In another blogger call this afternoon, McCain continued to hammer at Obama's willingness to meet personally and without precondition with the leaders of the world's most odious regimes. Echoing a statement he'd made earlier today, McCain asked:

If Senator Obama wants to sit down across the table with the leader of a nation that calls Israel a stinking corpse--what is it that he wants to talk about with him?

Obama has repeatedly insisted that his approach to Hamas and other terrorist organizations is no different than McCain's or Clinton's, but McCain drew a clear distinction when he declared that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism, so therefore a terrorist nation themselves." He went on, "We all know they're developing nuclear weapons and pose an enormous threat to the state of Israel."

McCain said he, too, would be willing to meet with the Iranians, but only on the condition that they recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism, abandon their nuclear weapons program, and stop training and supplying Iraqi militants:

Meaningful negotiations could take place if they stop sponsoring terrorist organizations…those are the preconditions for sitting down with the Iranians.

McCain said they could signal their willingness to do these things through their ambassador to Baghdad, but that Ambassador Crocker had informed him "they haven't shown the slightest inclination to do those things. They are seeking age-old Persian ambitions."

President Bush, speaking to the Israeli Knesset, today:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Barack Obama is upset at this statement by President Bush. Why? What does he disagree with? Shouldn’t he just have seconded the president’s admonition against falling for such a foolish delusion. Or does he know that his promise to talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad puts him in the camp of the foolish delusionists?

In February, many commentators lauded the elections in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)--in which the region’s religious parties were swept out of power in favor of secular-minded parties--as a major victory in the war on terror. Others warned at the time that the significance of the election results was being overstated. Developments in the past couple of months have shown that much of the celebratory commentary was indeed overly optimistic.

Examples of unqualified optimism following the NWFP elections abound. Shahfat Mahmood, a Pakistani politician, told Voice of America: "What it means for the NWFP is people can look forward to a rollback of Talibanization, people can look forward to a more focused, concerted approach of the government to battling terrorism." Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation wrote in the Washington Times that "[p]erhaps the most important outcome" of Pakistan’s elections "was the victory of a secular Pashtun party in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) over religious parties sympathetic to the Taliban." And former NWFP government official Mahmood Shah told McClatchy Newspapers that officials there would now "become more willing to cooperate with Afghanistan in suppressing Islamic militants."

In early March, I warned in the Middle East Times that the implications of the elections for terrorism in the NWFP were being overstated:

[T]here is reason to question whether the significance of the results is being overstated…. First, there is already concern in Washington about the approach the winning parties are planning to adopt vis-à-vis the Taliban. Farhana Ali, an associate international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation who recently returned from a 10-day trip to Pakistan, told me that many Pakistanis are fatigued by this war. "They see it as America’s war," she said, "but there is a new strand of thought emerging that the Pakistanis need to choose their own strategies." One such strategy that worries many Washington analysts is the new coalition’s willingness to negotiate with the Taliban. The RAND Corporation’s Seth Jones told me, "There is a strong desire among even the secular parties to engage in dialogue with militant groups. From a strategic perspective, I don’t see this as a major win for the United States."

Jones was correct. Immediately after taking office, the NWFP government began negotiations with the Taliban even though past agreements with Pakistan’s militants (such as the infamous Waziristan accords) had failed. Contrary to the cheery prediction of "a rollback of Talibanization," Pakistan’s Daily Times reports that the NWFP government has actually cooperated with the militant Tehreek-e-Taliban group led by Baitullah Mehsud in the implementation of sharia law in the NWFP’s Malakand division. This was one of the Taliban’s demands in its talks with the NWFP government: as one Taliban representative told the Daily Times, the group "demanded implementation of Shariah law, the army’s withdrawal from Swat, the release of all Taliban prisoners without pre-conditions and compensation for damages to civilians during military operations in Swat."

CBS:

Calling Barack Obama naïve and inexperienced, John McCain sharpened the Republican criticism that President Bush alluded to earlier today. “Why does Barack Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?” McCain asked today, referring to Obama’s willingness to negotiate with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. “What does he want to talk about with Ahmadinejad, who said that Israel is a stinking corpse, who said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, who is sending the most explosive devices into Iraq, killing Americans.”

Earlier today John Kerry denied that Obama ever said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad. Likewise over the weekend, Obama advisor Susan Rice denied that Obama said he would meet with Ahmadinejad. And then we have the YouTube video of Obama saying he would meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition during his first year in office (he also said he'd meet with Assad, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Hugo Chavez--quite a summit!), as well as this statement on his website:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

So how about some serious, enterprising reporter asks Obama just what he and Ahmadinejad would talk about, other than the constant sore that infects every aspect of American foreign policy--i.e., the conflict between the stinking corpse of Israel and the long suffering Palestinian people. I'm sure Obama and A'jad could agree that "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people."

The Wall Street Journal reports:

As we content ourselves with the fallacy that never again shall we have to fight large, technological opponents, China is transforming its forces into a full-spectrum military capable of major operations and remote power projection. Eventually the twain shall meet. By the same token, our sharp nuclear reductions and China's acquisitions of ballistic-missile submarines and multiple-warhead mobile missiles will eventually come level. The China that has threatened to turn Los Angeles to cinder is arguably more cavalier about nuclear weapons than are we, and may find parity a stimulus to brinkmanship. Who will blink first, a Barack Obama (who even now blinks like Betty Boop) or a Hu Jintao?

Our reductions are not solely nuclear. Consider the F-22, the world's most capable air dominance aircraft, for which the original call for 648 has been whittled to 183, leaving, after maintenance, training, and test, approximately 125 to cover the entire world. The same story is evident without relief throughout our diminished air echelons, shrinking fleets, damaged and depleted stocks, and ground forces turned from preparation for heavy battle to the work of a gendarmerie.

Helprin is coming over 5x5 on his F-22 comments (we need at least twice as many to meet future threats), but Chinese nuclear parity? Eh, not so much. Though the Chinese have ICBMs, ballistic missile submarines, and aircraft capable of nuclear delivery, they lack the ability to accurately lay down atomic ordinance globally. Per the old Soviet model, you can substitute numbers for precision, but the DoD estimates that the Chinese only have something to the tune of 100 deployed warheads -- that is, nukes that are ready to fly in a hot minute. I'm sure the exact numbers are classified, but with our 500 ICBMs alone we've easily got the ChiComs out gunned.

Still, Helprin's overall point is well taken. The Chinese recognize their nuclear shortcomings and are adjusting accordingly. That's bad news for both America and her allies in the region. When China can operate under the protection of a fully operational strategic umbrella, the probably of a quick and dirty conventional war with Taiwan increases exponentially.

Enter the importance of the F-22 and other state v. state weapon platforms. To prevent war in the Far East, we simply must maintain at least a decade's worth of technological dominance over the Chinese -- both nuclear and conventional.

Will Obama and Edwards be hoping and changing together?

Yesterday's big breaking news: John Edwards endorsed Obama. Although Edwards's delegates may begin to move to Obama, bloggers wonder if this endorsement will really help the candidate at all.

Michelle Malkin explains the endorsement: "One effete, big government liberal embraces another." Should we be surprised that Edwards endorsed Obama now? Gawker says, "The timing of the endorsement certainly shouldn't improve Edwards' reputation as a slick, ambulance-chasing lawyer. He waited until the Democratic presidential hopeful had a virtual lock on the nomination, but not so long that his endorsement would be totally useless."

Can Edwards help Obama? Allahpundit says, "He couldn’t even deliver North Carolina to Kerry when he was on the ticket. The left adores him for his fight-fight-fightin’ nutrootsy rhetoric, but for all his alleged boldness he waited around here until Obama locked up the nomination before daring to announce for him." At Redstate, Pejman Yousefzadeh says it's just "bandwagoning." And at the Fix, Chris Cillizza concludes, "Edwards has been out of the race--and the limelight--for months now and his endorsement doesn't matter as much as it might have three months ago or even one month ago. Make no mistake: Both Clinton and Obama worked hard for and wanted Edwards's support. But, his endorsement alone does not--and will not--drastically affect the race." Still, as Reason's David Weigel notes, "Something that really drives a stake into Hillary: Edwards has delegates."

Drudge asks if Obama-Edwards could be "The Ticket." But at The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson says, "McCain should pray that Obama picks (he won't) John Edwards as VP--he brings no executive record of experience, and offers less ideological balance; he has a poor record of winning primaries over two failed runs for the Presidency, has never appealed to working-class whites, hurt the Kerry ticket as a mediocre VP candidate, did poorly in past and present debates, and went even harder to the left (in scripted fashion) in the primaries." Sounds like a winning endorsement!

On MSNBC a few minutes ago, Senator John Kerry was on, furiously trying to explain Barack Obama’s increasingly tortuous position on Iran. (Kerry as Obama’s foreign policy proxy? You know where this is going…)

Senator Kerry attempted to claim that Obama doesn’t necessarily want direct, presidential-level diplomacy with Iran. Rather, he explained, “That’s why you have a Secretary of State, that’s why you have ambassadors.”

Alas, Senator Kerry might want to log onto Senator Obama’s website. In its words: “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

So much for the Secretary of State…

Update: Senator Joe Biden, asked for his reaction to President Bush’s statement that negotiating with terrorists, and appeasing dictators, is bad for America’s national security, responded with his typical high-minded eloquence and thoughtfulness:

“This is bullshit! This is malarkey! This is outrageous!”

The GI Film Festival in Washington, DC:

The GI Film Festival (GIFF), a 501 c(3) non-profit organization, is the first film festival in the nation to exclusively celebrate the successes and sacrifices of the American military through the medium of film. The four-day festival will be held on May 14-18, 2008 in Washington DC.

The GIFF will present films from new and established international and domestic filmmakers that honor the heroic stories of the American Armed Forces and the worldwide struggle for freedom and liberty. Some of the films screened will be fan favorites. Others will be screened for the first time. All will in some way express the courage and selflessness of our fighting men and women and the value of their work.

The 2008 festival is particularly relevant, given the long chain of anti-military movies that tanked at the box office this past year. Organizers are screening an impressive list of films that offer a somewhat different view of the American GI and the United States in general. As far as the latter goes, I'm particularly interested in The World Without Us, a short alternate reality film involving a neo-isolationist US President (Ron Paul maybe?) who retreats to our pre-World War II foreign policy. Here's the trailer:

The festival extends to Sunday. You can buy tickets here

The U.S. military appears to have conducted yet another “over-the-horizon” strike into Pakistan’s Taliban and al Qaeda-controlled tribal areas. At least 14 Pakistanis and “foreigners” – which means al Qaeda – were killed in a missile attack on the home of a Taliban commander in the tribal agency of Bajaur.

Ed at Hot Air said Mullah Obaidullah Ahkund, the Taliban’s defense minister prior to 2001 and a senior member of Taliban’s Shura Majlis, or executive council, was killed in the attack. But this may be a case of mistaken identity, which happens so often in these types of incidents. Obaidullah was reported to have been arrested in Quetta in February while raising money for the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the Pakistani newspaper Dawn said the home was that of Maulavi Obaidullah, “a local militant commander.”

Regardless of who was killed in the attack, this is the fourth such attack inside Pakistani territory since the end of January. The most successful strike took out Abu Laith al Libi, a senior al Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military is clearly concerned about the Taliban and al Qaeda’s growing strength in the tribal regions. With the new Pakistani government’s obsession with negotiating with the Taliban and ceding control of the tribal regions and the Northwest Frontier Province to the Taliban, and by default al Qaeda, the U.S. may need to rely on such strikes to take out senior terrorist leaders.

While the removal of terrorist leaders and the destructions of safe houses and camps proves useful in disrupting operations, it does little to change the overall situation, which is characterized by Taliban and al Qaeda control of the territories.

I never knew Republicans had so many strategists. It’s hard to avoid the free advice crowd today in Washington. Secret meetings, public meetings, secret meetings that become public -- if the GOP had a swimming pool, they could fill it with the perspiration from all the hand-wringing and sweaty palms.

Today’s Politico is a great place to hear the concerts of complaint. There is "finger pointing. There is "cancer" on the GOP. There is even a political "Dear Abby" advice column for the party.

Most of the input comes down to these two points: 1. Republicans need a message, and 2. Americans want solutions, not political rhetoric. Fine. That all makes sense. But here’s the rub. In politics, that’s easier said than done.

Consider the "message" problem. Republicans do have a message -- they stand for lower taxes, free trade, a strong defense, lower spending (usually), blah, blah, blah. The dilemma is no one’s listening. Republicans tend to define themselves in policy terms few people grasp. They speak a language not many outside the Beltway understand or care about -- even if people were listening.

Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman tells people, "We live in a world with a surplus of information and a deficit of attention." He’s right. Breaking through the clutter of everything from American Idol to bombs in Beirut is a challenge.

Next there’s the issue of "solutions." Even if Republicans had an agenda that Americans loved, Republicans no longer control the levers of power. They can only oppose (which people view as empty political rhetoric) or water down their agenda so much through compromise with the Democrats it’s no longer viewed as "Republican."

Bottom line: these "problems" won’t go away soon. And Republicans probably need some "help" from the Democrats. What do 2006 and 1994 -- the last two times party control changed in the House -- have in common? They happened under conditions of unified party control -- one side in charge of both the Congress and the White House. One way to highlight a Republican message and get people to pay attention is to give Democrats a chance to enact their agenda, and then run against it. That might take some time. In the meantime, hard work and patience are probably the best elixirs.

The president speaks to the Knesset:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Obama responds:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

The McCain campaign should welcome this debate--there's no way they can lose it. It will be enough to let Obama try and explain to the American people the distinction he draws between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the terrorist groups he supports, supplies, and directs in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq.

Above is John McCain’s new campaign ad. In spite of Powers Boothe’s stirring narration, I have to confess to being less than thrilled with the spot. The ad boasts that at the end of John McCain’s first term, the Middle East will be “stabilized,” the nuclear terror threat “reduced,” border security “strengthened,” energy independence “advanced,” wasteful spending “reformed,” healthcare choice “delivered’ and economic confidence also “restored.” Who knows? Maybe the influence of a McCain administration will even inspire the New England Patriots to win the next four Super Bowls.

Since all of these sound like swell things, you might wonder what’s my beef. The problem is Barack Obama could run the exact same ad. Obama also wants the Middle East “stabilized” and energy independence “advanced.” The difference between the two candidates lies in what they would do to make such things happen.

To wit, Obama’s plan to restore economic confidence includes raising taxes. McCain’s doesn’t. This ad is literally devoid of substantive ideas, and refuses to draw any contrasts between the two candidates. If the two candidates stand for exactly the same things, in this year of all years the one without an “R” after his name is a long shot.

In other disturbing news, Rasmussen’s tracking numbers continue to show Obama with a one point lead over McCain. The fact that the deficit is only a single point is actually good news. The bad news is found in the internals: “Obama is supported by 71% of Democrats, McCain by 80% of Republicans.” Chances are, a bunch of those Democrats will come home after their bitter primary season has become a memory.

Rasmussen also notes, “It is amazing that McCain remains competitive at all in a year where the fundamentals so heavily favor the Democrats.” True enough. Quite by accident, the Republican party has managed to nominate its only candidate with a chance of winning the general election. A more traditional Republican or one that the public more closely associates with the tattered Republican brand would have almost no shot.

But McCain does have a shot. If, however, he runs a race trying to be “Barack Obama Light” (if you can imagine such a weightless creature), his chances will evaporate in a hurry.