DCExaminer Morning Must Reads

Byron York - Who told Obama drilling is 'absolutely safe'?
There was one particularly striking moment in President Obama's widely panned Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil disaster. About midway through his talk, Obama acknowledged that he had approved new offshore drilling a few weeks before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20. But Obama said he had done so only "under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe." (thats something I'd like to know as well)


Julie Mason - Democrats fates will hinge on Obama's handling of spill
Democrats had planned to campaign this fall on health care reform, but President Obama's deep pivot to the BP oil spill changes both the equation and focus of midterm campaigning.


Susan Ferrechio -GOP leaders threatened Barton with loss of committee post
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex., was ordered by the top House leadership to retract his apology to BP and to apologize for making the statement in the first place or risk losing his position on a powerful House committee. (he shoulda told 'em to pound sand)


Mark Hemingway - NJ Gov Chris Christie approval rating rises to 51 percent
The latest Rasmussen poll has New Jersey Governor Chris Christie with his head above water at a 51 percent approval rating. This is a signifcant uptick, as teachers unions in the state have carpet bombed the airwaves with $6 million in ads attacking him since March.


David Freddoso - CNN: We only think Obama’s speech was lousy because we’re not smart enough
Apparently, the real problem with President Obama’s Tuesday night speech is not that it contained no substance, little reassurance, and no sign that he is on top of the oil spill. Rather, the problem is that he used too many big words and long sentences, CNN dutifully reports:

More Stories
Tea Party documentary: When was the last time Chris Matthews did anything worthwhile?

E. J. Dionne's advice to lemmings

N.C. Poll: Pugnacious Dem congressman with creepy hug now trails

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

New York Times -- Afghan Suicide Bomber Killed C.I.A. Operatives
The deadliest day ever for the CIA comes as a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest inside a forward base where drone attacks and covert operations in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan are staged.
The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan (another suicide bombing has sent the U.N. packing) and the renewed fervor of jihadis around the globe seem to suggest that the second Obama surge in Central Asia will be met with not just the quasi-military maneuvers of the Taliban, but the rank terrorism used by Islamists around the world.
Writers Alissa Rubin and Mark Mazzetti explain:
“A NATO official said the bomber managed to elude security and reach an area near the base’s gym. It was not clear whether the bomber, who apparently died in the blast, entered the gym. Among other questions raised was whether the bomber worked at the base and had clearance, or if a security slip allowed him to gain entry, and whether other operatives had access to the base.”

New York Times -- Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terror

The emphasis in the story from Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton – as with many other stories today fueled by leaks from the Obama administration – was how the security apparatus failed to pull together strands of intelligence to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his explosive underwear from getting aboard a Detroit-bound flight.

Times writer Scott Shane even lays the failure at the feet of the National Counterterrorism Center for failing to put together the clues to stop Abdulmutallab.

But this wasn’t about a lack of intelligence sharing, this was about a lack of intellect.

The bomber’s father pleaded with the State Department and CIA to stop his son, showing them damning text messages Abdulmutallab had written. Then, the lad showed up with cash and no luggage to buy a ticket on a U.S.-bound flight having already been placed on double-secret airline probation and still got a seat.

The idea that this was a systemic failure that has to be addressed with another overhaul of the bureaucracy dilutes the culpability of those individuals who failed to act correctly and prudently when presented with clear evidence. Sacking those responsible (and prosecuting them if the dereliction is severe enough) would do more to snap the bureaucracy to attention than calling for a big, hazy, Obamian overhaul.

But with the administration in another political firefight with Dick Cheney after the former vice president blasted the administration for treating Abdulmutallab like other criminal defendants, expect the problems President Obama finds when he receives his security evaluation today to point to major problems with the system he inherited, not boneheaded moves by individuals.
“The father, a wealthy Nigerian businessman named Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had urgently sought help from American and Nigerian security officials when cellphone text messages from his son revealed that he was in Yemen and had become a fervent radical.

A family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: ‘Look at the texts he’s sending. He’s a security threat.’
The cousin said: ‘They promised to look into it. They didn’t take him seriously.’”

Wall Street Journal -- U.S. Probes Cleric's Tie to Jetliner Bomb Plot

The American-born Yemeni cleric who provided online tech support for Maj. Nidal Hasan’s radicalization may have also been coaching up Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab while the Nigerian banker’s son was taking foreign-language training in Sana’a.

Writers Evan Perez, Margaret Coker and Siobhan Gorman look at the ties between the most recent terrorist attacks and Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

They paint the picture of a propagandist for jihad whose American ties make him well-suited to preach a murderous doctrine to western Muslims like Hasan or those who have lived lives of privilege because of access to the western system, like Abdulmutallab.

“Mr. Awlaki, 38 years old, followed a familiar path of privileged young man to radical. Born in New Mexico to an affluent father -- a former Yemeni minister of agriculture who is currently an adviser to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh -- Mr. Awlaki was educated in the U.S.

After coming under the scrutiny of U.S. and U.K. authorities following 9/11, Mr. Awlaki returned to Yemen, where he continued his religious teaching and lectured at Imam University, the head of which has been designated by the U.S. and the United Nations as a terrorist financier.”

The Hill -- State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill

What a crafty bunch these attorneys general are. Rather than threatening a suit over the whole health bill or even the part that, for the first time in American history, requires every American to purchase a private product as a condition of citizenship, a group of 13 AGs says that Ben Nelson’s $100 million “Cornhusker Kickback” is illegal because it treats the states differently.
Nelson, who has lost 30 points in the polls at home, felt the need to pay for a pricey ad during the Cornhusker’s 33-0 beatdown of the Arizona Wildcats in the Holiday Bowl last night to explain to his constituents why paying to play is the Senate way.
By singling out Nelson, the AGs apply pressure on him at home, but also make the focus on the corrupt bargain angle in the Senate. That leaves other, bigger, legal gambits for later, when the legislation is passed.

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.”

Washington Post -- Support grows for tackling nation's debt

Writers Elaine S. Povich and Eric Pianin look at what is expected to be the central piece of the Obama administration towards fiscal restraint – a commission to take the responsibility for spending away from Congress and put it in more responsible hands.
The idea, like the one Obama had about health care in Illinois and suggests for Medicare now, is that a group of experts makes budget (i.e. tax) proposals to Congress which then votes the packages up or down as a whole.

It would be a rather stunning admission of failure by Congress -- sort of like a brethalyzer lock on the car of a multi-DUI offender – to abrogate their central constitutional authority of budgetary control.

“The most vocal advocates of the idea are Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who this month jointly unveiled legislation to create an 18-member task force consisting of 16 members of Congress and two administration officials. Under the proposal, if at least 14 of the panel members reached agreement on how to rein in skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and reform the tax code, Congress would have to consider it immediately and give it an up or down vote, without amendment.”

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast

Michael Barone - It's a wonderful life working for the government
It looks like a happy new year for you -- if you're a public employee.
The unemployment data shows that this recession has had a much greater effect on private-sector workers than on public employees, on men than on women, on blue-collar workers than on white-collar employees.
It sounds like public- and private-sector employees are looking at different Americas. And they are.

Timothy P. Carney - GM rehires lobbyists -- and taxpayers foot the bill
GM, the failed carmaker whose $400 million in monthly losses is borne mostly by U.S. taxpayers, has in recent months hired high-priced K Street lobbyists to petition Washington for subsidies, special tax breaks and other government favors on top of the $52 billion in aid the Treasury has already provided.
In June, GM began firing its outside lobbyists as part of downsizing its entire $10 million-a-year lobbying operation. As company spokesman Greg Martin told Roll Call, "We have begun notifying our outside consultants that we will be terminating their contracts." But GM has since rehired two of its old K Street firms, the Duberstein Group and Greenberg Traurig, and picked up new representation in the firm GrayLoeffler.

Mark Hemingway - Democrats need to stop blaming GOP for TSA failure
A bizarre new line of attack is emanating from congressional Democrats reeling from concerns the Obama administration may not be doing enough to keep American air-travelers safe.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary's Janet Napolitano's bizarre "the system worked" statement regarding an Islamic radical who smuggled powerful explosives on board a U.S.-bound flight was swiftly condemned. Following that public debacle, Democrats are trying to blame the Transportation Safety Administration's total failure on Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Fireplace fascism in California
Burn wood in the Bay Area, and your neighbors will rat you out and send inspectors to your door who will slap you with a fine. Even on Christmas Day.
More Stories
Denmark's second largest newspaper: "Obama greater than Jesus"
The TSA and the full-body-scanner lobby
Poll: Nelson reelection looking doomed over health care

More On Carbon Offsets

Carbon credits: 'SELL! SELL! SELL!'
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
12/22/09 5:02 PM EST
The Financial Times reports that investors who hope to capitalize on your misery by getting into the carbon-trading market are losing money after the failure of the Copenhagen's climate summit to produce anything resembling a real or binding agreement on limiting carbon emissions.
Prices for carbon permits for December 2010 delivery, the benchmark contract for pricing European permits, dropped nearly 10 per cent in early trading, before recovering to end the day 8.3 per cent lower at €12.41...Carbon traders blamed the price fall on the Copenhagen conference, which produced an accord among the world's biggest developed and developing countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, but omitted details on what those limits would be.
If and when the government forces you to pay extra for your energy in the name of some presumed environmental benefit, these are the folks who will become rich at your expense.

United Conservatives of Virginia: The Question Is: Are We the Windshield or the Butterfly?

The Question Is: Are We the Windshield or the Butterfly?

Michael Barone - When liberal dreams collide with public opinion
In the Bella Center on the south side of Copenhagen and in the Senate chamber on the north side of the Capitol, we're seeing what happens when liberal dreams collide with American public opinion. It's like what happens when a butterfly collides with the windshield of a speeding sport utility vehicle. Splat.

Grabbing Stuff from the Inbox

DCExaminer
Chris Stirewalt
Good Stuff

New York Times -- Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan
The president went to great pains to explain to the cadets at West Point and a skeptical American public how Afghanistan is not like Vietnam. He might have also explained what Pakistan isn’t like.It may seem surprising since he threw in most everything else – his domestic agenda, his avoidance of past American failures, his wish for a world without war, etc. But Pakistan – the world’s largest Islamic republic – is hard for President Obama to discuss.He has been escalating the clandestine American war in Pakistan for months, even as the nation’s 181 million residents become more suspicious of American involvement and of the American-backed government in Islamabad. As writers David Sanger and Eric Schmitt point out that while Obama did not say much about Pakistan Tuesday night, the thrust of his efforts in the region are focused there.“In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country. The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan.‘The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorism safe havens,’ said one American official. ‘More people, more places, more operations.’”

Washington Post -- The puzzle for Congress: How to pay for plan
President Obama was very frank in saying that one of the reasons he had to end his Afghan surge in 18 months is that otherwise the cost will interfere with his domestic agenda.“The nation I’m most interested in building is our own,” Obama said. But even a short surge in Afghanistan might cost as much as another $45 billion on top of the $55 billion a year we’re already spending there.On the subject of how to get that money and press forward with the most expensive domestic agenda in generations, Obama was less frank.Writer Paul Kane looks at how war opposition, crippling debt, and a massive entitlement expansion will complicate Obama’s request for more funds.Conservatives want to divert domestic spending to the war, liberals want new taxes, and the president won’t say where he thinks the money should come from.As Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio points out, opposition to the plan is spreading on the Right, further complicating the politics of paying for the president’s second surge.“Obama's proposal would place more than 200,000 troops altogether in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the troop level across both nations averages 75,000 through the next decade, the operations will cost an additional $867 billion -- more than the $848 billion health-care legislation the Senate is considering.”

New York Times -- Senators Pitch to Women and Elderly on Health Bill
The first proposed Democratic amendment to the Senate health bill would add almost $1 billion in taxpayer costs and outlaw low cost, bare-bones health insurance for women. The addition is intended to allay fears among women that government health care means fewer mammograms, etc.The first Republican amendment would eliminate cuts to popular government insurance programs for senior citizens. It was pandering too, but actually designed to kill the whole bill by eliminating half the source of its funding.Writers Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn show us what a long, dreadful process finishing this Senate bill will be.“Another centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said he would propose three amendments. One would impose tougher restrictions on the use of federal money for insurance covering abortions. Another would give states more control over any new government-run health plan. A third would eliminate a proposed new federal program providing insurance for the costs of long-term care.”

Wall Street Journal -- Climate Scientist Steps Down
The scandal surrounding the suppression of scientific doubts about man-made global warming by top climate researchers continues to roll along, now with resignation of Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.With the president eight days away from his remarks at the international carbon summit in Denmark, it seems a bad time for a meltdown in the climate control sector.“On Wednesday, President Barack Obama's top science adviser -- John Holdren, a climate scientist who sent one email among those hacked and posted -- is due to testify on Capitol Hill. The House committee holding the hearing has billed it as a way to explore ‘the urgent, consensus view...that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse.’ Dr. Holdren's office declined to comment. Dr. Holdren has long spoken of the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of man-made global warming.”

Wall Street Journal -- ObamaCare at Any Cost
The latest swoon on Capitol Hill is over a Congressional Budget Office report that shows only 20 percent of Americans would see big increases in their health insurance premiums while taxpayer-funded subsidies will hold down increases for most consumers.The Journal editorial page does a thorough job of debunking the notion that higher premiums for some and subsidized premiums for others is a good value. “We have now reached the stage of the health-care debate when all that matters is getting a bill passed, so all news is good news, more subsidies mean lower deficits, and more expensive insurance is really cheaper insurance. The nonpolitical mind reels.Consider how Washington received the Congressional Budget Office's study Monday of how Harry Reid's Senate bill will affect insurance costs, which by any rational measure ought to have been a disaster for the bill. CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

"Look At All These People!!!"

Washington Examiner Political Digest
Byron York - Inside the 9/12 protest

Hours before Saturday's protest began, it was clear that the crowd of people opposing Obama's big-government policies would be larger than many anticipated. There are no official estimates of how many attended, but there's no doubt that the turnout, from the crush on Pennsylvania Avenue to the crowd at the West Front of the Capitol, was big -- perhaps in the 100,000 range.

No one was more surprised at the show of force than some of the marchers themselves. "We did it!" cried one elated woman as she approached Pennsylvania Avenue. "Look at all these people!"

You certainly did.

Cap and Trade Apollo Style

Cap-and-trade can’t bridge gap between unions and enviros
By: Booker T. Stallworth
August 30, 2009

Inspired by the speed and spending of the Apollo moon landing, the Apollo Alliance — a coalition of community organizers, environmentalists and big labor — is aggressively pushing President Barack Obama’s plan to regulate carbon emissions through cap-and-trade.
If a recent meeting of labor and environmentalists is any indication, however, cap-and-trade may end up in a disaster more reminiscent of the Apollo 13 mission than the triumphant Apollo 11 landing.
Earlier this month, the AFL-CIO and its Washington state affiliate hosted a conference on the proposal in Wenatchee, Wash. Despite labor’s seat at the table, Bob Baugh, executive director of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council, conceded that cap-and-trade posed a serious threat to workers, especially labor members in energy-intensive industries.
Baugh’s right. According to a recent report by the Heritage Foundation, Waxman-Markey would cost millions of jobs and would increase unemployment levels for every year: 1.9 million fewer jobs in 2012, and an average of 1.14 million fewer jobs from 2012 through 2035. Those industries most affected would include manufacturing, glass, plastic and rubber-product production, and the fabricated-metal industries — all heavily unionized sectors.