But there is another element that may not have been considered in addition to the above, and that is how making nice with the Taliban would affect women. Far too often, women are the afterthought in these discussions, a grievous oversight especially given the history of women in Afghanistan. This article highlights the concerns women face in Afghanistan, Afghan Women Fear Loss Of Hard-Won Progress.

And rightly so, it seems to me, given what the Taliban have done to women, and continue to do to women in this country. There may have been some advancements, though not without a price paid:

LAGHMAN, AFGHANISTAN — The head-to-toe burqas that made women a faceless symbol of the Taliban’s violently repressive rule are no longer required here. But many Afghan women say they still feel voiceless eight years into a war-torn democracy, and they point to government plans to forge peace with the Taliban as a prime example.

Gender activists say they have been pressing the administration of President Hamid Karzai for a part in any deal-making with Taliban fighters and leaders, which is scheduled to be finalized at a summit in April. Instead, they said, they have been met with a silence that they see as a dispiriting reminder of the limits of progress Afghan women have made since 2001.

“We have not been approached by the government — they never do,” said Samira Hamidi, country director of the Afghan Women’s Network, an umbrella group. “The belief is that women are not important,” she said, describing a mind-set that she said “has not been changed in the past eight years.”

The Taliban’s repressive treatment of women helped galvanize international opposition in the 1990s, and by some measures democracy has revolutionized Afghan women’s lives. Their worry now is not about a Taliban takeover, Hamidi said, but that male leaders, behind closed doors and desperate for peace, might not force Taliban leaders to accept, however grudgingly, that women’s roles have changed.

Those concerns share roots with the misgivings voiced by many observers, including some U.S. officials, about Afghan efforts to forge a settlement with the Taliban, whose leaders promote an Islamist ideology that seems wholly at odds with rights the Afghan constitution guarantees.

The unease about such a settlement stretches from Kabul to the mountain-ringed valleys of Laghman, a scrappy town in a province still stalked at night by Taliban fighters. As a young girl here, Malalay Jan studied in a private home, hidden from the Taliban regime that forbade her education. Four years ago, her girls’ school was torched in a rash of suspected Taliban attacks. Now, she said, she is sure of one thing: Afghan women should have a spot at the negotiating table.

“We don’t want them to stop us from getting an education or working in an office,” said Jan, 18, wearing a rhinestone-studded head scarf at her rebuilt school. Women, she said, should be “the first priority.”

Indeed. But if the women are not being consulted, if they do not have a place at the table to offer input, and have their input actually considered, how can women in Afghanistan fulfill the promises of their Constitution? Here is more:

Karzai, the Afghan president, has endorsed the idea of talking with all levels of the Taliban, and his aides insist that women need not worry about the equal rights the Afghan constitution guarantees them. But they also say they are performing a difficult balancing act, and suggest that making bold statements about the sanctity of such topics as women’s rights might kill talks before they start.

“We will act from a position of principle. And that principle is that half the public wants these rights to be protected,” said Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, who is drafting Karzai’s reconciliation plan. “It is not the authority of a group of people in government or a group of people in the insurgency to decide the fate of a whole nation.”

In today’s Afghanistan, females make up one-quarter of parliament, fill one-third of the nation’s classrooms and even compete on “Afghan Idol.”

But violence against women remains “endemic,” according to the State Department. The percentage of female civil servants is steadily dropping. Just one of 25 cabinet members is a woman, and female lawmakers say their opinions are often ignored.

That point was underscored in January, many observers said, when the women’s affairs minister was not invited to an international conference in London on reconciliation and reintegration.

Bringing the Taliban into the government could make things worse, Hamidi said.

“They think women should stay at home,” she said. “And all of them have the same perception and same beliefs, from the lowest to the top level.”

Many of us remember the stories of what has happened to women in Afghanistan, the school burning mentioned above, the beatings of women who dared to go out in public without a male escort, the throwing of acid on school girls. It is hard to reconcile these stories with this:

The Taliban itself, led by Mohammad Omar, has tried to dispute that. As part of what analysts call a public relations campaign to soften the movement’s image, Omar, though still in hiding, released a statement last fall that said the Taliban did not oppose women’s rights and favored education for all.

Arsala Rahmani, a lawmaker and former Taliban government official, said he thought women’s activists were being close-minded, defying what he called “a mother’s duty to always try to unite their sons.” He said that the Taliban restricted women to protect them from conflict — not out of ideological misogyny — and that Omar and his fighters would accept any ideas the Afghan public favors.

To human rights activists, those Taliban messages are ploys to dim support for U.S.-led military efforts in Afghanistan. They point to Taliban-dominated Kandahar province, where militants have closed two-thirds of schools, and Helmand, where tribal leaders say female teachers are threatened with death.

Wow, talk about your “blame the victim” mentality. It is WOMEN’S fault for talkng about gaining equality that is the problem. Yeah, sure, that’s it – it has nothing to do with these women being treated like chattel for a number of years. Spare me. And I am not the only one not buying what Rahmani is selling:

It is a worrisome prospect to women such as Khujesta Elham, an aspiring politician who on a recent day was chatting with friends between classes at Kabul University. She said she thought Taliban fighters should be shunned, though she did not expect that to happen.

“Whatever decision Karzai makes will be his alone,” said Elham, 22. “The government does not care about women’s rights.”

The depth of the Taliban’s control varies across Afghanistan, as was the case during its rule, and so do views on the movement. In the 1990s, the Taliban viewed Kabul as a den of depravity, and it was there that its notorious Vice and Virtue police most brutally wielded batons against women who exposed their faces or wore high heels.

In Laghman, a rural Pashtun province in the shadow of snow-capped mountains, patriarchal traditions meant many of those rules were already in force. The area’s Taliban officials mostly ignored unauthorized girls’ schools, said Qamer Khujazada, who ran one until the Taliban was ousted in 2001. Khujazada became principal of Haider Khani high school, but militants burned down its administrative offices four years ago.

Hanifa Safia, the women’s affairs representative for the province, said she thinks a settlement is the only way to peace. The Taliban fighters who throw acid on schoolgirls’ faces or threaten professional women do so just to antagonize the government, she said. “I have talked to so many Taliban. They are not against women,” Safia said. “Once they have been given positions in government, they will definitely change.”

Khujazada, the principal, tentatively agrees. She walks confidently through the halls of her fraying school, overseeing a staff that she boasts is exactly half female.

But many of the girls slip into blue burqas before they leave the concrete-walled schoolyard, and Khujazada acknowledged that most will be married off before they ever set foot in a university. What is important, she said, is that they have the right to continue their schooling.

“Education has a lot of friends,” Khujazada said cautiously. “But it has some enemies, too.”

Education is key, to be sure. Secretary of State Clinton has said that numerous times about girls in general, but Afghanistan in particular. She is right about that, but there has to be a systemic change in Afghanistan, along with other nations (like the United States). Women and girls in Afghanistan may have made some strides, but they have far yet to go (as do we).

I cannot help but wonder if we all worked together, sister to sister, could we not bring about change, real, lasting change? Can we not teach our sons that girls and women are equal partners to them? Can we not teach our daughters that anything less than true equality, true partnerships, and respect, is unacceptable? Can we not change the world? I think we can. I think we must. For these women and girls in Afghanistan; for the women and girls, as young as TWO YEARS OLD, in Haiti who are being raped daily after the earthquake (and can our military who are there not help PROTECT them?); for those women in Sudan; for the women here in our own country? We must. We MUST.

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer? Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

–
Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

The answer to that question is even more disturbing, as the video below explains:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yes, this Jordanian doctor was a double agent. This article, NBC: Al-Qaida Double-Agent Killed CIA Officers ; Officials: Perpetrator of Afghan attack was supposed to infiltrate al-Qaida, goes into more detail regarding how and why this attack was carried out:

The suicide bombing on a CIA base in Afghanistan last week was carried out by a Jordanian doctor who was an al-Qaida double-agent, Western intelligence officials told NBC News.

Initial reports said that the attack, which killed seven CIA officers, was carried out by a member of the Afghan National Army.

According to Western intelligence officials, the perpetrator was Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, 36, an al-Qaida sympathizer from Zarqa, which is also the hometown of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant Islamist believed responsible for several devastating attacks in Iraq.

Al-Balawi was arrested by Jordanian intelligence more than a year ago. He had moderated the main al-Qaida chat forum before his arrest and was known online as Abu Dujanah al-Khurasani.

“Abu Dujanah was an active member of jihadi forums,” said Evan Kohlmann, who tracks jihadi Web sites for NBC News. “He was actually an administrator on the now-defunct Al-Hesbah forum, previously al-Qaida’s main chat forum.”

The Jordanians believed that al-Balawi had been successfully reformed and brought over to the American and Jordanian side. They set him up as an agent and sent him to Afghanistan and Pakistan to infiltrate al-Qaida.

His specific mission, according to officials, was to find and meet Ayman al Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s No. 2, also a physician.

However, a Taliban spokesman, quoted on the Al-Jazeera Web site, said al-Balawi misled Jordanian and U.S. intelligence services for a year. The spokesman, Al-Hajj Ya’qub, promised to release a video confirming his account of the Afghanistan attack.

I cannot even begin to guess how it was determined that this doctor had “turned,” and was going to work against Al Qaeda. I leave such questions to Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and expert on Counter-terrorism, who knows far more about this than I could ever even hope to, or want to, know (and you can catch a number of recent appearances by Larry Johnson on CNN discussing the CIA, Yemen, and TSA HERE). That a doctor could do this to other people, though, is just staggering to me It flies in the face of everything doctors are supposed to stand for: Do No Harm. Just like the Fort Hood terrorist, Army Major Nidal Hasan. How can this happen? What would drive someone whose life work is supposed to be helping people:

On martyrdom
After he arrived in Afghanistan last year, al-Balawi was interviewed by one of al-Qaida’s main Internet sites, the Vanguards of Khurasan, on the subject of martyrdom.

“When you ponder the verses and hadiths that speak about jihad and its graciousness, and then you let your imagination run wild to fly with what Allah has prepared for martyrs, your life become cheap for its purpose, and the extravagant houses and expensive cars and all the decoration of life become very distasteful in your eyes,” he told the interviewer.

He added, “They say ‘there’s love that kills.’ And I only see that as truthful in the love for jihad, as this love is either going to kill you in repentance should you choose to sit away from jihad, or will kill you as a martyr for the cause of Allah if you choose to go to Jihad, and the human must choose between these two deaths.”

Last week, according to the Western officials, al-Balawi reportedly called his handler to say he needed to meet with the CIA’s team based in Khost, Afghanistan, because he said he had urgent information he needed to relay about Zawahiri.

Ah yes – there it is. “There’s love that kills.” I have a fair amount of theological training, but I must say, this is a shocking interpretation, in my humble opinion, that is.

The doctor/bomber was convincing:

Close relations with Jordanian intelligence

His handler was a senior intelligence official, identified in Jordanian press accounts as Sharif Ali bin Zeid.

But bin Zeid was not just a Jordanian intelligence officer; he was also a member of the Jordanian royal family and was a first cousin of the king and grandnephew of the first king Abdullah.

Bin Zeid’s prominent role offers rare insight into the close partnership between American and Jordanian intelligence officials and how crucial their relationship has become to the overall counterterrorism strategy.

“We have a close partnership with the Jordanians on counterterrorism matters,” a U.S. official told The Washington Post. “Having suffered serious losses from terrorist attacks on their own soil, they are keenly aware of the significant threat posed by extremists.”

Jordan’s official news agency, Petra, said bin Zeid was killed “on Wednesday evening as a martyr while performing the sacred duty of the Jordanian forces in Afghanistan” and provided no further details about his death.

Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera reported that al-Balawi’s family refused to speak to the media on instructions from Jordanian security services.

Sources close to the family told Al-Jazeera’s Web site that Jordanian Intelligence arrested the perpetrator’s younger brother and ordered his father not to set up a condolence tent for his son so that it would not turn into a gathering place for jihadist sympathizers.

I would say that was the very least they could do, especially given this quote: “on Wednesday evening as a martyr while performing the sacred duty of the Jordanian forces in Afghanistan”…Holy shit.

This bombing has a huge impact, as one might imagine:

Key base for CIA

According to Western officials, bin Zeid, along with the seven CIA officers, were killed when al-Balawi, the formerly trusted informant turned double-agent, detonated his suicide belt at Camp Chapman.

Some of the officers had flown in from Kabul for what was thought to be an important meeting.

The base was used to direct and coordinate CIA operations and intelligence gathering in Khost, a hotbed of insurgent activity because of its proximity to Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, former CIA officials said. Among the CIA officers killed was the chief of the operation, they said.

Six other people were wounded in what was one of the worst attacks in CIA history.

A senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC the CIA is “looking closely at every aspect of the Khost attack.”

“The agency is determined to continue pursuing aggressive counterterrorism operations. Last week’s attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Qari Hussain, a top militant commander with the Pakistani Taliban who is believed to be a suicide bombing mastermind, said last week that militants had been searching for a way to damage the CIA’s ability to launch missile strikes on the Pakistani side of the border.

Using remote-controlled aircraft, the U.S. has launched scores of such missile attacks in the tribal regions over the past year and a half, aiming for high-value al-Qaida and other militant targets. The most successful strike, in August, killed former Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud at his father-in-law’s home.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA base has been at the heart of overseeing this covert program. The newspaper cited two former intelligence officials who have visited Chapman as saying that U.S. personnel there are heavily involved in the selection of al-Qaida and Taliban targets for the drone aircraft strikes. (Richard Engel is NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent; Robert Windrem is a senior NBC News Producer.)

I love a good spy thriller as much as the next person, but this isn’t Hollywood. What this tragedy brings home forcefully is that this is not a movie, this is not some script crafted by some Intelligence wannabe. This is real. Real people lost their lives in service to this country, a service that is too often unsung or unappreciated, getting recognition not for what goes right, but for what goes wrong. The work they do, often referred to as “cloak and dagger,” is beyond most of our imaginings. It is done, though, for our benefit, for our safety, for our protection. And those who lost their lives are real people, with families, with small children. They have devoted their lives to trying to stop the kinds of attacks we saw here on 9/11, to stop Al Qaeda. And they were betrayed by someone they thought they could trust.

Intelligence work, obviously, is not an exact science. How does one know for sure when someone is telling the truth, when someone is truly on your side? Sadly, in this one instance, they did not. And now, more stars will be going up on the wall.

If you are so inclined, there is a fund for the families of these fallen officers, which include 8 children. The address is: The CIA Officers Memorial Fund, c/o Arnold & Porter LLP, 555 12th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004.

Fair? Probably not. But that’s how perception works. And sometimes it can work to the advantage of the family member left behind.

In a recent op-ed in Wall Street Journal penned by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari entitled “Democracy is the Greatest Revenge,” the opening five paragraphs were not about his accomplishments as President or even about Pakistan. Instead they focused on Benazir Bhutto, whose death is still mourned the world over.

On this occasion it’s probably humane to cut Zardari some slack. The piece was published on the two year anniversary of her assassination. The man has a right to mourn.

But Zardari is no Ethel Kennedy or Coretta Scott King. He is the president of a country riddled with serious problems – violence, poverty, illiteracy, a growing and increasingly deadly terrorist threat, a media that proudly display their cynicism and fondness for intrigue, a military and security apparatus lurking ominously behind the scenes, mistrust of the West, ongoing sugar and power shortages, the perpetuation of feudal resentments…the list is long and daunting. None of the distinguished ladies mentioned at the beginning of this piece were ever tasked with such an awesome responsibility.

When Zardari took office some suggested that he was merely a regent keeping the seat warm until the dauphin Bilawal came of age. Those days are over. Zardari runs one of the most scrutinized and troubled countries in the world.

We mourn Benazir. No one begrudges Zardari his eulogy. But the time is past for the President of Pakistan to keep looking back. He has the present stewardship and future of his country to think of.

–
This piece was originally posted at : ThePakistanUpdate.com.

So, just what was in this bill:

The Senate passed a defense appropriations bill Saturday as the chamber’s Democrats cleared the decks for its healthcare reform legislation.

The $636 billion Pentagon budget and added unrelated amendments including extension of unemployment benefits for fiscal year 2010 passed the Senate overwhelmingly with a vote of 88-10. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was joined by nine Republican senators in opposing the bill.

The vote came after a contentious cloture motion on the defense spending bill passed early Friday as Democrats accused Republicans of slowing the defense bill’s progress in order to impede their healthcare reform package.

Only three Republicans voted to move forward with the defense bill then, which helped beat back a GOP-engineered filibuster.

Despite the legislation funding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the tune of $128 billion, much of the debate on the defense bill has centered around the Democrats’ reform push for the healthcare reform legislation instead. In an effort to finish the healthcare bill before the end of the year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been keeping the Senate in session late at night and through the weekend. GOP senators, in turn, have said that Democrats are pushing the bill too quickly before it can be properly considered.

Well, yeah – I don’t think one has to be a Republican to speculate as to WHY the Democrats are in such a hurry that they cannot take more time for, I dunno, READING THE DAMN THING first, or forming committees to study the long range impact, particularly cost, etc. But hey, that may just be too reasonable for them:

“The majority knows that the more time the public has with the bill, the more they know about it, the less they will like it,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on the Senate floor Saturday before the defense vote. “This is a rush.”

Democrats countered by saying their colleagues across the aisle have concentrated on delaying their bill and have not come up with their own plan to change the healthcare system for the better.

“That is what they have to offer to the American people. Not ideas, not solutions, but delay,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) in response. He then went through a variety of reforms the Senate healthcare bill would achieve.

The successful passage of the defense bill in the Senate now clears the way for Democrats to finish their work on the healthcare reform bill. The House had already easily passed the defense bill on Wednesday with a 395-34 vote.

Oh, Dick (Durbin, that is), why play the blame game in an attempt to not be held accountable for your role in this unwanted, short-sighted, payout to insurance companies and Big Pharma?

Well, I imagine we’ll be debating this for some time to come, this whole Health Care issue, and how it will REALLY affect us. Once they have it all written down, that is.

But even an article on the Defense Appropriations bill is more about the so-called Health “care” bill than Defense. There is a reason for that I think (UPCOMING SATIRE ALERT).

Believe it or not, there is one thing Obama WON’T sign in the Defense Appropriations Bill. Frankly, I don’t understand it one bit. This, to me, looks like one of the all-time coolest, most awesomest, niftiest defensive creations EVER. Oh, if only the following was from a real news organization as opposed to The Onion:

Am I right, or am I right? Totally wicked awesome, isn’t it? Too bad they had to take out the pool, though. Ah, but it is not to be, sadly. One damn thing Obama won’t spend our money on. Oh, he’ll fly back and forth to Copenhagen for a CLIMATE summit after just having flown to Europe a week or so before – talk about your carbon footprint (remember, it isn’t just Air Force One that goes on these trips), but will e allow the Dragon Tank? Noooooooo. Sheesh!

Hopefully, this attempt at levity has brought a bit of a smile to your face, and given you a break, if just for a moment, from the other bullshit which, sadly, is all too real. There will be time enough to discuss it again, but I, for one, on this Solstice Eve, could use a bit of humor. Hope you enjoyed the respite, too!

Ahahahhaha – just kidding. I know that while pandering to, I mean, granting an interview, to Oprah, Obama graded himeslf on a major curve and gave himself a B+ thus far. Wowie zowie – I bet his students loved him at the Law School if this is how he gave grades back then. I bet they were beating down the door to enroll to bump up their GPA.

I also know ACORN got their way with a federal judge’s assistance when Judge Nina Gershon ruled the cut-off was un-Constitutional. I guess she’s a-Okay with all of the shenanigans perpetrated by ACORN, from voter fraud to a willingness to fund illegal, underage prostitution. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

And then there was that speech for the Nobel Peace Prize to the most undeserving winner, well, EVER. Ironic that it came after he agreed to send in thirty thousand troops to Afghanistan? At least the first half of it was an improvement for Obama speaking abroad. For once, he didn’t slam the country he represents, so there’s that. Heck, even Charles Krauthammer liked the beginning of the speech:

Krauthammer’s comment, when asked by Bret Baier about Obama’s claim to “humility,” said that was NEVER going to happen. Teehee! I managed to not listen to ANY of it until just now – for you. I know, I know, I’m a giver.

But my favorite goes back to Oprah’s interview. It has to be the answer by the Obamas to Oprah’s question regarding who gives the best gifts:

Dang. I have no love lost for Michelle, but I gotta say, I don’t know how she didn’t slap him upside his fool head, as we say down South, for his response. Naturally, NO ONE does anything as well as HE does, but he also humiliates his wife to pump his own self up more. He must be a JOY to live with, don’t you think?

Well, it’s good to be back, but I have to run. My laptop charger died, and I’m working on borrowed time until my replacement arrives.

Did I miss anything else? Is anything going on in, say, Copenhagen? Fill me in!

This is perfect Sunday fare, and rich coming from someone who routinely appeared with Keith Olbermann on Countdown (until they broke up back in August last year). That would be Dana Milbank. Oh, yes, this is priceless:

Obama The Mortal

Some parishioners in the Church of Obama discovered last week that their spiritual leader is a false prophet.

Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. By escalating the war, Moore wrote:

“[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.”

Obama, of course, was not moved by his follower from Flint. The real question is why Moore, and those millions and multitudes of whom he wrote, thought that Obama would do otherwise. Obama never said during the campaign that he would pull out of Afghanistan; in fact, he had promised to escalate. “As president, I will make the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said in July 2008, vowing to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama’s supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals for Obama’s Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59 percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94 percent in the spring — and, given the noisy complaints from the left last week, that number seems likely to fall further.

I wonder what Moore thinks now that Obama didn’t pay any attention to him? Not sure why he ever thought Obama would, but there you have it. As Milbank points out:

It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy — and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest.

Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. “I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept,” he would say as he wrapped up speeches. “Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Uh, you think? Encouraging it?? That is exactly what Axelrove and Plouffe wanted – to craft Obama as the next coming (remember the whole “the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” crap?), and Obama was all too willing to go along. That isn’t exactly a newsflash, at least to us in the reality based community. We were aware of what the Obama camp was doing, and why. No doubt, it was so people wouldn’t pay attention to this:

In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists “will not get a job in my White House” but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key administration jobs.

But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.

For all of Obama’s soaring oratory about hope and change, it was plain even during the campaign that his record was that of an incrementalist. His signature legislation — health care in the Illinois Senate and ethics in the U.S. Senate — were evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary overhauls. His Afghanistan policy, likewise, is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy. He stayed true to his campaign promise to take the fight to the Taliban, but he also tried to build a consensus.

His record? Just which record would that have been exactly? The one in which Emil Jones slapped Obama’s name on legislation for which he had done exactly NOTHING? And what did he do in the US Senate besides blow off promises made on the campaign finance reform committee, or fail to hold any meetings for the committee for which he was chair (that pesky boring one that just dealt with stuff like Afghanistan)? Is that the new definition of “incrementalist”? Sure, whatever you say, Dana.

Back to Afghanistan:

You’d think his supporters might applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership as a repudiation of the Bush style of government by political theory. Instead, they’re using words such as “O’Bomber” to describe the president. MoveOn.org launched a petition drive against the policy. Code Pink, the group that heckled Bush officials for years, heckled Obama advisers on Capitol Hill last week. The liberal Web publisher Arianna Huffington told Charlie Rose that the policy “puts into question his whole leadership.”

This is what happens when true believers mistake a mortal for a messiah. (danamilbank@washpost.com )

“Thoughtful”? “Methodical” Oh, right – that is “Upside down world” speak for “hemming and hawing”, “dithering,” and “dragging one’s feet.” Got it.

And Dana, you and a lot of the rest of the MSM were hyping Obama as a messiah, too, so make sure you shine that spotlight on yourself and your colleagues, while you are at it. Obama couldn’t have gotten his “message” across all over this land without the sycophantic collusion of the media. Just sayin’.

We all knew this was going to happen. At some point, Obama’s most devoted followers were going to start letting the reality pierce their veil of “Hope, Change, And Unicorns for Everyone!” It would have been BETTER had this happened 18 months ago before this charlatan got into the White House, aided and abetted by some of the very folks Millbank mentions above, as well as the media.

Okay – can I finally say this? I told you so. We told you so. Time to get up off your knees, shake the Kool Aide dust out of your head, and realize you have been had, on the 7th level with Tom Cruise kind of being had by some self-proclaimed messiah.

We welcome you to the Reality Based World. And with this being Sunday and all, I reckon we can say our prayers are starting to be answered. Halle-damn-lujah.

So the other night, Obama had his big Afghanistan speech. Finally, after months of waiting for a decision regarding the request by General McChrystal, Obama laid out his plan, pretty much what had been telegraphed to us before the speech (yet, he still had to get in his photo op and applause, lest he whither away).

Naturally, there has been lots of response to that speech, as well as the location in which Obama chose to have it. Here is one of my favorite All-Stars, Charles Krauthammer on the Speech:

Uh, yeah. Krauthammer followed up this panel with a commentary, “Uncertain Trumpet,” which lays it all out.

And how about our friends across the pond? What did they think of Obama’s big speech? Well, the headline alone gives it away, “Barack Obama Is No Churchill.” Nope, not even a little bit:

One of the first decisions President Obama made upon taking office was to remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and send it packing to the British Embassy. The gift, a present from the British people in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, was pride of place in the White House under George W. Bush, but was seen as surplus to requirements by his successor. Hardly a good omen for an increasingly unpopular president, whose nation is actively engaged in a global war against a brutal enemy that seeks the destruction of the free world.

Speaking at West Point last night, Barack Obama badly needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer. As Commander in Chief President Obama has to project leadership, strength and determination before his country and his foes, as well as offer reassurance to Washington’s international allies. All were in short supply in front of the assembled cadets .The speech was less a rallying cry for victory over barbarism, than a dull professorial-style lecture that sought to justify his confused approach to the US mission in a cold and clinical fashion that simply failed to convince or inspire.

Ah, yes – the bust of Churchill that Obama could not WAIT to get out of the Oval Office. Talk about telegraphing tone – yikes.

Back to the speech itself:

Parts of the highly defensive speech were heavily partisan in nature, involving attacks on the Iraq War, as well as the previous administration’s approach to Afghanistan. He also could not resist a boast that “I’ve prohibited torture”, and that he has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. For a 40 minute speech there was barely any applause from the largely muted audience, except towards the end when he spoke of American values and its distinguished history.

The president went to great lengths to avoid referring to the enemy as terrorists, and refused to use the word Islamists, preferring to refer to the war as a “struggle against violent extremism.” At times it was a weak-kneed address better suited to a group of adoring left-wing students in Paris, Strasbourg or Berlin than the US military academy. Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was stone-faced throughout.

After nearly three months of painful dithering over whether to launch an Iraq-style surge against the Taliban, the president disappointingly offered less than half the number of troops that his own commander on the ground had requested. General Stanley McChrystal had sought up to 80,000 soldiers to guarantee success, but was given just 30,000.

“Dithering” would be the operative word. Or, you could use “hemming and hawing,” if that suits better. The point is, a decisive president Obama is not. But there is something else he is:

There was also deflating talk from the president of a clear timetable for withdrawal of forces by July 2011, a hugely risky move that hands the initiative to the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies. In justifying his withdrawal strategy he declared America could not afford to ignore the cost of the war, which at $30 billion this year is massively dwarfed by Obama’s $800 billion pork-laden stimulus package.

Significantly, there was no mention at all of the British contribution, and the Anglo-American Special Relationship was not even on Obama’s teleprompter, let along his radar screen. Great Britain will shortly have over 10,000 troops on the battlefields of southern Afghanistan, and has lost more than 230 brave servicemen and women alongside their American counterparts. The sacrifices made by America’s closest friend deserve to be acknowledged by the US president but were met last night with callous indifference.

And there it is. Do you get the impression that the UK is not so enamored (enamoured – to be inclusive) of Obama? No doubt, it started with the removal of Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office. Then came the numerous slights to Prime Minister Brown who got not so much as a State sandwich on his first visit (in stark contrast to the big huge State Dinner for the Indian Prime Minister). And then the failure to acknowledge the sacrifice of our allies in theater with us.

It all comes down to leadership:

America and the free world need stronger leadership than this. Instead of turning to Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill as role models Barack Obama has so far chosen a middle way of compromise and uncertainty. That must change if the West is to triumph in Afghanistan. The addition of tens of thousands more troops is a step in the right direction, but is simply not enough to secure victory and is dramatically undercut by the bizarre announcement of an exit in 18 months.

The war in Afghanistan is ultimately a battle between good and evil, and is essential to the defence of the United States, Great Britain, Europe and all who believe in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a war that is vital to keeping our cities safe from attack by Al Qaeda. It must be led by a president who firmly believes that it can be won, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to bring the enemy to its knees. Today was a huge opportunity for Barack Obama to outline a clear, coherent strategy for victory, and he spectacularly failed to grasp it.

I would have to concur with the final assessment – Obama is not a world leader. He may be a world PLACATER, or a World Courtier, but a Leader? No, most definitely is not, not by a long shot. Spiegel’s take is summed up in this paragraph:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.

One could say that.

Since I mentioned the West Point cadets, and in case you didn’t know this already:

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.

Many of us are not the only ones to acknowledge the timing of the withdrawal:

For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama’s re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.

Yes, so coincidental, Obama’s time-frame and his re-election bid. Hahahahahaha. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

At least now others in the world are beginning to awaken to the reality that many of us knew: Obama is a Poseur, completely incapable of governing, much less acting as the Commander in Chief. His continued use of our military, including the West Point Cadets, as a “photo op” to prop him up is disturbing.

Worst of all, though, he has managed to give aid to our enemies by telegraphing to them exactly how long they will have to go underground. He has aided them in his bid to play both sides. He’s not just a failed leader, but his announced withdrawal time line is detrimental to the effort, thus to our military, possibly our country. And for that, he is a disgrace.

Oh, you might recognize one woman in particular, especially if you are a fan of The Amazing Race, as I am. Yes, Erica Kleinschmidt, one of the final three pairs in this year’s Amazing Race, is one of the six Miss Americas who went. Watch it here:

Moving, isn’t it? And after Obama’s “Push Me, Pull Me” policy for Afghanistan, I am sure our troops needed this lift.

And for a bit of a shift, since we will be decorating our Solstice Tree today, I have a fitting tune for you. First, may I just say, I freaking love having a tree inside my house. The way it makes the whole house smell brings a smile to my face every time. Until I have to sweep up the needles on the floor, aided in their decline by my four energetic cats.

Anyway, for a little treat, here is a moving holiday tribute:

I meant “moving” in the cracking up laughing sense!

Hope you enjoyed it. I gotta get to that tree.

The contents of which we pretty much already know at this point (thus raising the question why we still have to listen to Obama), a whole bunch of people are protesting the expected surge. One group is Code Pink:

Another person who thinks we care what he has to say is Michael Moore, that arrogant, sanctimonious windbag (okay, okay – I admit it – I own Fahrenheit 9/11 and used to like him), who seems to think he is both a military strategist and a member of the Intelligence Community. He wrote Obama a letter laying it all out for prior to the speechifying. Moore says Obama should NOT listen to the generals on the ground regarding Afghanistan because we are a civilian nation. In other words, he thinks the generals should be told what to do by the likes of Moore, apparently, as opposed to listening to the people who are actually in theater. I guess Moore missed it when Obama was campaigning and made the claim that Agfhanistan was going to be his primary focus in the War on Terror. Oh, right – no one actually listened to what he said, just the melodic, dreamy way in which he said, it.

Excuse me – I have to go throw up now.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s Obama in his own words (you won’t have to wait long for it):

It gets better. Moore, with his apparent connections to the Intelligence Community, claims there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan. Now, I know a bunch of people have gone to Pakistan. I get that. But, where the hell is Moore getting this information, which, if true, I assume might be classified? I’m just wondering.

Te letter goes on (and on). Feel free to click HERE if you care to read any more of it.

You can watch the speech tonight, if you wish. Or you can read this NY Times article and get the scope. I can bottom line it for you: 30,000 troops over 6 months, not as many as Gen. McChrystal wanted, but big surprise there. And, Obama will set a timeline for when the US will start pulling back those reinforcements. You’re welcome!

Bottom line, Mr. Moore, and Code Pink – Obama s actually keeping one campaign promise, even though he dragged his feet for months before he did it. Believe you me, no one is more surprised than I am. And maybe now you know you should have actually paid attention to the “Words, Just Words” that were coming out of his mouth during the campaign and not being lulled into your Obama LaLaLand of Happy Rainbow Unicorns. Just a thought.

Oh, just in case you don’t know this about me, I am not a war hawk, not by a long shot. But on this, going after the people who attacked us, I think we are right, Code Pink and Michael Moore notwithstanding. Do I wish we had accomplished our mission there already? Absolutely. Should we leave before we do? No. That sends a dangerous message – people can attack us, and after a while, we’ll just give up on finding them. These are patient people. They will wait until our guard is down. I don’t see how we can afford not to continue in Afghanistan until the job is done. Can you?

An Australian Special Forces explosives detection dog has been found alive and well almost 14 months after going missing in action (MIA) in Afghanistan.

Sabi was found by a US soldier at an isolated patrol base in north-eastern Uruzgan last week.

The black Labrador was declared MIA in September 2008 during the same battle with the Taliban in which SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson won his Victoria Cross.

Sabi was present with her handler when their combined Australian, US and Afghan National Army convoy was ambushed by an insurgent force.

Nine Australian soldiers, including Sabi’s handler, were wounded during the engagement.

Sabi spent more than a year in the desolate south of Afghanistan and repeated attempts were made by the Special Operations Task Group to find her.

The US soldier who found her, and who can only be identified by his first name John, was aware Australian Special Forces soldiers were missing one of their explosive detection dogs.

He said it was immediately obvious that Sabi was no ordinary dog.

“I took the dog and gave it some commands it understood,” he said.

How cool is that? It says something about John that he noticed this dog, and approached her in the first place. That is to say, I would guess he had other stuff to do. But notice her he did, and got her to the right people, much to the delight of her trainers:

She was flown to Tarin Kowt to be reunited with one of her trainers and he knew instantly it was Sabi.

“I nudged a tennis ball to her with my foot and she took it straight away. It’s a game we used to play over and over during her training,” the trainer said.

“It’s amazing, just incredible, to have her back.”

Currently in the United Kingdom after meeting Her Majesty the Queen, Trooper Mark Donaldson said Sabi’s return closed a chapter of their shared history.

“She’s the last piece of the puzzle,” he said. “Having Sabi back gives some closure for the handler and the rest of us that served with her in 2008. It’s a fantastic morale booster for the guys.”

At the time of her disappearance Sabi was coming to the end of her second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having previously deployed to Uruzgan in 2007.

Sabi will now undergo a period of quarantine before a decision can be made about the timing of her return to Australia.

Below is the video report of this remarkable dog and her unit (ignore the moniker of the poster – this was the one closest to the original shown in Australia):

How much do you love that shot of Sabi in the big trunk of tennis balls?? I just love that she’s a Special Forces Dog, about to be decorated, and playing with her tennis balls is such a high priority!

As we go into the weekend, I hope this story brings a smile to your face, and a hug to the furry creature of your choice!

The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out – AGAIN – that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

This is rich. We know about Obama’s many, many czars. Mark Steyn believes Obama has another one, someone of whom you have heard, but who isn’t on the usual list,

Obama Makes Bush His Blame Czar. You know, he has a point – we’ve been hearing for months now “He did it!” from Obama on all sorts of issues.

Steyn begins his piece writing about “Barack’s Rock,” Valerie Jarrett:

Valerie Jarrett announced the other day that “we’re going to speak truth to power.”

Who’s Valerie Jarrett? She’s “Senior Adviser” to the president of the United States – i.e., the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Adviser, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Adviser has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death.”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we? The most powerful woman in the inner circle of the most powerful man on Earth has decided to speak truth to powerful people standing in the street with handwritten placards saying “THIS GRAN’MA ISN’T SHOVEL READY.” Was it only a week ago that I wrote about this administration’s peculiar need for domestic enemies?

The Senior Adviser seems to have forgotten that she is the power. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the “long years of drift” under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he’s too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the “long years of drift” began in 1776.

Indeed, Ms. Jarrett thinks throwing around phrases pulled from those who are actually in the trenches will give her some street cred. You don’t think anyone fell for that hooey, do you? Just in case you know anyone who did, you can tell them that she is a lawyer, married to a doctor, and was on the Chicago Stock Exchange. So, yeah, not exactly a career in the Peace Corps., or hell, even AmeriCorps. Just more posturing on the part of the Obama Administration.

Just like Obama’s blame shifting. Just more posturing to protect his carefully crafted image:

Rocco Landesman, head honcho at the National Endowment for the Arts, seems closer to the reality of the situation. In his keynote address to the 2009 “Grantmakers in the Arts” conference, Landesman hailed Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar”. He didn’t mean a “powerful writer” as in a compelling voice, gripping narrative, vivid characterization, command of language, etc. He meant a “powerful writer” as in Caesar was king of the world, and now Obama is. He came, he saw, he stimulated: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

I suppose so. He could invade somewhere and force the natives to accept degrading roles in NEA-funded performance art. He could take out the Iranian nuclear program by carpet-bombing it with unreadable literary novels. That is, if you “accept the premise” that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Rocco Landesman may, but it’s not clear, from his actions (or inactions) in Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the president does. But, even so, it seems an odd pitch to “American artists.” Rocco Landesman, Speaking Goof to Power, isn’t the first Obama groupie to enjoy the kinky frisson of groveling obsequiousness, but he’s set an impressive new standard in public revelation thereof. Rocco’s aunt, Fran Landesman, is the great lyricist of “Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most” as well as “The Ballad Of The Sad Young Men.” But surely there are few sadder middle-age men than her nephew, prostrating himself before his master as the most literate global colossus in two millennia.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but I take his point. Still, there are a whole bunch of sad “middle-age men” who would fit that bill. Chris Matthews springs immediately to mind.

Speaking of the NEA:

Meanwhile, Larry David is now doing televised NEA exhibits on his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Christians are said to be “angry” at him because of an episode in which, after he accidentally sprays his urine on a picture of Jesus, his assistant mistakes the droplets for tears and calls in her mother to witness the miracle of Christ weeping. Ha-ha! Oh, those brave transgressive artists! Of course, Christians aren’t “angry” in the sense that two U.S. residents arrested last week are. The pair – one an American citizen, the other Canadian – were so “angry” about the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that they hatched a plot to kill the artist and his editor. As many commentators pointed out, Mr. David’s splashy stunt is a dreary provocation: It’s easy to be provocative with people who can’t be provoked. If he were to start urinating in a more Mecca-ly direction, he’d find an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.

But I liked the point made by the Anchoress, a writer at the magazine First Things: Putting Muhammad, et al aside, if Larry David had a yen to urinate hither and yon, wouldn’t it have been “braver” to have done it to the religious icon du jour? That’s to say, Barack Obama. And then maybe Ashton Kutcher could have marveled at how even Obama’s image was empathizing tearily with all 687 million Americans without health insurance. Or, alternatively, dribbling warm champagne from his Norwegian Nobel banquet toast. C’mon, Larry. Sure, you might not have a career afterward, but, unlike any Islamo-provocations, you’re not gonna get killed. Just fired, and probably damned as a racist. But at least you wouldn’t be a simpering suck-up to power like Rocco Landesman and the other creeps.

“Religious icon du jour” – priceless. I mean, c’mon, obviously he is – just check out that Chia commercial. And I wouldn’t hold my breath on the end of sucking-up, but that’s just me:

At some point the Caesar cult has to manifest itself in an achievement – I mean a real achievement, not merely some dud prize handed out by Norwegian Lefties. Afghanistan is his now: Notwithstanding “years of drift,” whether it winds up as victory or defeat is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt. Pace Valerie Jarrett, the truth is you are the power. And those on the receiving end of it are going to be speaking a lot louder in the months ahead.

Yep, it surely is all Obama’s now. And not for nothing, but it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t control both houses for two years before Obama got into the White House. There is a lot for which Bush is responsible, but at some point, Obama needs to stop making him the Blame Czar, and start doing his job.

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…