After publicly bashing the Afghan government for months, airing their doubts as to whether we have a reliable “partner,” and stalling a decision about the troops while the election was redone (but not really, as the challenger dropped out), the Obami have decided to be nice, or nicer, at any rate, to the government we are trying to stabilize. The Washington Post reports:

As President Obama nears a decision on how many more troops he will dispatch to Afghanistan, his top diplomats and generals are abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship. They recognize that their initial strategy may have done more harm than good, fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered, conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner.

“It’s not sustainable to have a ‘War of the Roses’ relationship here, where . . . we basically throw things at each other,” said another senior administration official . . .

The tension in the relationship stems from the cumulative impact of several White House decisions that were intended to improve the quality of the Afghan government. When Obama became president, he discontinued his predecessor’s practice of holding bimonthly video conferences with Karzai. Obama granted wide latitude to the hard-charging Holbrooke to pressure Karzai to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that have fueled the Taliban’s rise. The administration also indicated that it wanted many candidates to challenge Karzai in the August presidential election.

It turns out that the bullying routine was about as successful in Afghanistan as it has been in the Middle East. But don’t expect much self-reflection. Hillary Clinton is now tasked with the charm offensive. We learn: “As Mr. Karzai begins his new term, Mrs. Clinton has worked to avoid a hectoring tone in her public comments about him. American officials had done too much of that in the past, she said.” The past, meaning the past few months, I suppose.

Once again it seems as though we are having to relearn the lessons of Iraq. There, too, Democrats sneered at the government as hopeless and at its prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, as ineffectual and inept. With the success of the surge and the breathing room to establish a functioning civil government, that perception has changed. And likewise, in Afghanistan, the Obami may be learning belatedly (because they have chosen not to extract any meaningful lessons from the Iraq war, which they were ready to lose) that we actually need to bolster the native government if we hope to defeat our mutual enemy. You’d think smart diplomats would have figured this out much sooner.

Megan McArdle has a typically thoughtful post on bending the cost curve, or not, through the Democrats’ health-care reforms. She explains:

What passes for delivery reform consists mostly of slashing reimbursement rates to providers, and then putting Medicare Advantage on the same plan. There are two problems with this.  The first is that there’s no reason to believe that providers will find ways to efficiently provide care at the new, lower rates, rather than just stop serving Medicare patients. That was the core point of the recent report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — and though a lot of bloggers developed sudden suspicions about the integrity of government reports, in fact, this pretty much jibes with the warnings that Doug Elmendorf has been issuing, and also, reality. . . The second is that the treatment cuts — and any further cuts recommended by the cost effectiveness commission — can be undone by Congress.

Well what about the tax on so-called Cadillac plans? Maybe that’s going to discourage overspending, but as McArdle points out, it’s also quite possible that it “ends up just being a heavy tax on a random group of people who happen to have expensive health insurance, [and] then it won’t cut health care costs, and also, will probably end up being repealed.”

There’s really nothing in sight that will influence the cost of health care, because the Democrats refuse to address two issues: tort reform (with the ensuing problem of defensive medicine and unneeded procedures) and expanding markets (e.g., interstate sales, changing tax treatment of individually purchased plans).

What we are doing here is spending gobs of money, raising hundreds of billions in taxes, slashing Medicare payments, and empowering government bureaucrats to influence health-care treatment all in the name of expanding coverage. It isn’t remotely what Obama promised, and it’s not what voters seem to want. But we may get it anyway.

When word first came that Major Nadal Hasan had been in contact with a radical imam in northern Virginia, we were told he was doing “research.” It was quite a research project, according to ABC News:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

“It sounds like code words,” said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. “That he’s actually either offering himself up or that he’s already crossed that line in his own mind.”

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

“Hasan told Awlaki he couldn’t wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife.”

The Pentagon has opened not one but two internal reviews and declined to participate, at least for now, in the congressional investigation. But given the exquisite concern for diversity above all else, as so vividly displayed by Army Chief of Staff General George Casey days after the attack (”And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”), one wonders if the Army is capable of sizing itself up.

For example, the Washington Post reports that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was at it again. He expressed concern “over the possibility that the incident could lead to suspicion against ‘certain categories of people,’ apparently referring to Muslims. ‘In a nation as diverse as the United States, the last thing we need to do is start pointing fingers at each other,’ he said.” Hmm. It would seem that the point of an investigation is precisely that — to finger those people responsible and to note their ideological motives. It seems there is great squeamishness about doing that, though. Maybe it’s time for an 11/5 Commission. That’s what we did after the last terrorist attack.

George W. Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzales had some cringe-inducing performances before Congress. But let’s face it — most of what he was being raked over the coals about (e.g., firing U.S. attorneys who serve at the will of the president) was nonsense drummed up by Democrats who knew a sitting duck when they saw one. Eric Holder’s performance this week was arguably in a class by itself — the extent of his ignorance and the shabbiness of his preparation was all the more appalling given the gravity of the issue.

As Charles Krauthammer notes:

In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal. What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war that the United States itself has engaged in countless times?

But at the most basic level, Holder appeared not to have wrestled with the fundamental legal issues at play here. He blithely asserted that a conviction would be best assured in civilian court — but had no reply when Sen. Jon Kyl noted that KSM had already pleaded guilty in a military commission: “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in a (civilian) court than that?” When Sen. Lindsey Graham asked about the last time an enemy combatant was scooped off the battlefield, Holder was stumped. The silence was painful. Didn’t he know? Hadn’t the Justice Department lawyers discussed that this had never been done? And to top it off, Holder was again flummoxed when asked if Osama bin Laden would need to be Mirandized if we finally snatched him. No one at Justice apparently had raised this or any other meaningful hypothetical with Holder. Or maybe his mind was already made up by the time anyone started puzzling through the ramifications of the decision.

It is remarkable, really. The president pretends that he left one of the most critical decisions of his presidency to the lawyers. The lawyers’ boss doesn’t really grasp the legal issues. Next time Obama wants to hide behind Holder’s skirts, he might suggest that his attorney general get up to speed. Otherwise, the American people might get the idea that this is all a lefty ideological lark without regard to national security and without serious legal analysis.

Congress is getting mad: “Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.” The outrage is bipartisan — the Black Caucus, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and lots of Republicans. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is the target du jour:

“Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). “For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?” Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. “I don’t think that you should be fired,” he told Geithner. “I thought you should have never been hired.” Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China’s practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

Why now? Maybe the poll numbers have spooked those in Congress. Maybe the unemployment numbers have frightened them. But they sense that the White House has no real game plan for economic recovery, the stimulus has been a bust, and the real possibility exists for either a double-dip recession or a long slog with low growth.

Part of this is the doing of the very same lawmakers who are now grousing. No one forced them to spend time on two job-killer bills — cap-and-trade and ObamaCare. Well, other than their own leadership. And they aren’t about to recognize the connection between anemic hiring and the raft of tax hikes, mandates, and fines they have in mind as part of health care.

But the outbursts are noteworthy for one reason: they suggest that those in the Congress know that their own fate is tied to the economy and that the sagging popularity of the president means he’ll be of little help (and maybe great harm) in 2010.

The Senate opened hearings (minus co-operation from the administration) under the clear-eyed leadership of Sen. Joe Lieberman to look into the Fort Hood massacre. Lieberman described the slaughters as a ”homegrown terrorist attack” that had been mishandled by law-enforcement and military agencies. This is a good start: at least some elected officials refuse to turn a blind eye to widely known facts.

In a similar vein, Cliff May asks how it was that everyone missed the obvious. (”Why did none of those who saw something say something? In a culture where the value of diversity trumps the requirements of security, to do so would have been career suicide. There was no way that was going to happen.”) May explains:

The lesson of Fort Hood is not that Muslims in the U.S. military are a fifth column. But neither can we continue to blithely assume that someone like Hasan — American-born, well-educated, apparently sophisticated — could never succumb to the temptations of what the politically correct call “violent extremism.”

And May decries the uninformed political correctness that refuses to acknowledge that those who are on a violent jihadist mission are not outside Islam: “Western commentators sometimes assert that Muslims who preach intolerance and belligerence are ‘heretics’ who have ‘hijacked’ a great and peaceful religion. But no Muslim authority would say that — not even those who denounce terrorism. How, after all, can a fundamentalist be a heretic? How can someone who insists on a literal reading of the Koran be accused of misrepresenting what it says?”

May also points to an uncomfortable reality:

No battles or even protests were ever staged outside the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Northern Virginia where Anwar al-Aulaqi preached a hateful and violent theology. Major Hasan was among those who worshipped with — and was inspired by — al-Aulaqi, an American-born cleric who five years ago decamped to Yemen. In recent days, al-Aulaqi has described Hasan as a “hero,” adding: The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

Unfortunately our president is still on the political-correctness kick, and isn’t for now willing to acknowledge the nature of our enemy. Maybe the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the public’s commonsense understanding of what occurred at Fort Hood, and the persistence of Lieberman will force the administration to open its eyes — before yet another terrorist attack.

Rumors swirled as to whether Rudy Giuliani would enter the New York Senate race. Reports said he would not run for governor but was going to take on Kirsten Gillibrand. His spokesperson said he’ll tell you when he’s made up his mind. A new poll suggests he’d do well against Gillibrand:

54% of registered voters statewide would vote for Giuliani compared with 40% who would support Gillibrand. Even one-third of Democrats report they would back the Republican challenger, and Giuliani runs competitively against Gillibrand in overwhelmingly Democratic New York City.

Giuliani has been out hammering Obama on the decision to try KSM in a civilian court, and one supposes that this and national security would be top issues in the Senate race. After all, within a fortnight, Democrats in the Senate declined the opportunity to cut off funding to move terrorists to the U.S. for trial and to prepare SuperMax prisons to house them, thereby ensuring this issue will be front and center in the 2010 Senate races. Whether it’s Giuliani or another challenger, Gillibrand will be forced to defend her votes and her party’s record on national security. The voters will have their say.

Michael Gerson writes:

In the beginning, the Obama administration directed a spotlight toward its careful, thoughtful decision-making process on Afghanistan. National security meetings were announced, photographed and highlighted in background briefings to the media. President Obama would apply the methods of the academy to the art of war — the University of Chicago meets West Point — thus assuring a skittish public that deliberation had preceded decision.

Now the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are desperately trying to jerk the spotlight away from a dysfunctional Afghan decision-making process in which chaos has preceded choice, complicating every possible outcome.

The president supposes he has endless time to meander through the reading list, consult with some visiting gurus, and send research assistants back for more data. He operates without regard to the real world — the troops in the field, his plummeting poll numbers, and the growing skittishness in his own party. Ironic, isn’t it, that he and his netroot cohorts loved to portray George W. Bush as impervious to and sealed off from the real world. Bush of course managed to wade through the Pentagon double-talk, fire the right people, hire better people, and turn the war in Iraq around. Obama? He’s still in blissful isolation, now at least until Thanksgiving, we are told.

It’s unnerving, to say the least, to observe a White House so entralled by its own process (or in thrall to it?) that it would delay implementation of a new war strategy and imperil the president’s own standing as commander in chief. Obama may be angry about the leaks, but he has only himself to blame.

Marco Rubio is closing in on Charlie Crist in the Republican Florida Senate primary.

Two Republican congressmen have a theory as to why the recovery is tepid: “The source appears to be a growing fear that the federal government is retreating from the free-market economic principles of the last half-century, and in particular the strong growth policies that began under Ronald Reagan.” One big factor, they say, is tax policy: ”Marginal income tax rates, capital gains rates, dividend rates and death-tax rates will increase — significantly. Hardest hit by these increases will be small businesses that file under the individual income tax code as sub-chapter S corporations, partnerships and proprietorships. Yet these are the very people whose investment and hiring decisions either drive or starve recoveries.”

Michael Goldfarb closes in on NIAC’s lobbying and efforts to silence journalists: “Keep in mind, this is an organization that claims on its tax forms that it DOES NOT engage in lobbying. Moreover, all of the group’s efforts seems focused on preventing additional sanctions, eliminating U.S. democracy funding initiatives, and destroying the Voice of America’s Radio Farda service. The regime couldn’t come up with a better set of priorities for NIAC, which may explain why so many people are wondering on behalf of whom NIAC is working.”

More bad polling for Obama in the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll: 46 percent approve and an equal percentage disapprove of his performance. Independents disapprove by a stunning 51 to 34 percent margin. By a 42 to 39 percent margin, respondents want to vote Republican in congressional races “to provide a check on Obama’s power.”

And from Quinnipiac: “Three-quarters of American voters — 74 percent — like President Barack Obama as a person, but only 47 percent like most of his policies, and voters disapprove 51-35 percent of the health care overhaul passed by the House of Representatives which he has endorsed, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Voters disapprove 53-41 percent of President Obama’s handling of health care. Obama’s endorsement of the House of Representatives–passed health care plan makes no difference to 44 percent of American voters, while 24 percent say it makes them view him more favorably; 30 percent less favorably.”

Meanwhile, the status quo has never looked so good: “As Congress debates a possible major expansion of health insurance in the United States, Gallup finds 38% of Americans rating healthcare coverage in this country as excellent or good, the highest (by eight percentage points) in the nine-year history of this question, and 12 points above last year’s level.”

Another weekend rush: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the first key test vote on his $848 billion health care bill will be taken Saturday, but he declined to say whether he has 60 senators lined up to vote yes. ‘We will find out when the votes are taken,’ he told reporters at a midday event. Reid also said he would not use a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation to pass the bill — a shift from previous statements when he would say all options are on the table.” And that’s 8 p.m. on Saturday for the vote. Get the sense they don’t want too much attention?

Meanwhile: “Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Thursday that he would prevent health reform from moving to final passage if restrictions on federal funding for abortion weren’t tightened during the amendment process. But, he added, ‘there are a lot of other things that could keep me from supporting it in the end as well.’”

Governors speak up: “Republican governors, meeting outside of Austin, sharply criticized the bill and a companion measure that has passed the House, claiming Thursday that they do nothing to contain rising medical costs and would shift significant costs to already fiscally strapped states.”

Wait, we were told to forget the tax problems because he was a genius: “Snowballing frustration about the economy burst into a political fracas Thursday, with several lawmakers calling on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign over angst about unemployment and Wall Street bailouts. The criticism came largely from House Republicans, who have long been critics of the Treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner’s job status doesn’t appear to be in serious jeopardy and several Democrats at a congressional hearing leapt to his defense. But joining the anti-Geithner chorus in increasing numbers are more liberal Democrats who say the White House’s economic policies haven’t done enough to boost job growth.”

Public Policy Polling has some interesting findings:

Overall 49% of voters express approval of Obama’s work with 46% disapproving. He has the support of 83% of Democrats, 47% of independents, and 10% of Republicans. There’s been little change in his base of support over the last year with liberals, moderates, blacks, Hispanics, and young voters all giving him positive reviews and conservatives, whites, and older voters expressing displeasure with his work.

Hurting Obama’s overall reviews is that for the first time in our polling we find a majority of Americans opposed to his health care plan. 40% say they support it with 52% opposed, including 58% of independents. “This is the first time President Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50% in our polling,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “It does seem that the health care issue is hurting him some with independents who voted for him last year.”

Meanwhile, over at Gallup, Obama’s disapproval rating ticks up to 44 percent, while at Rasmussen (which tracks likely voters) we find:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President. … Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

Perhaps it’s health care, Obama’s signature initiative, that’s driving his polling lower. Maybe it’s the bow or the dithering over Afghanistan. Or maybe Americans really don’t like the idea of trying KSM in a civilian courtroom. But what is clear is that they are souring on the president, and if he wants to preserve some political capital, and prevent his party from being dragged under as well, he would do well to stop pretending that he doesn’t hear the American people. In this politically obsessed White House, I think it’s fair to conclude he is kept up to date on the polling; he’s just decided to go right on doing what he wants to do anyway. That’s the sort of thing voters tend to notice.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has introduced his health-care plan, which diverges from the House bill in some keys respects. For one, it’s actually longer, at 2,074 pages. And it doesn’t bar federal subsidy of abortion. Quite the opposite. And here is the key and possibly killer element:

Like the House bill, Reid’s proposal would be financed through billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, as well as new taxes. But while the House would impose a 5.4 percent surtax on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for families, the Senate would rely primarily on a new tax on high-cost insurance policies that has been hugely unpopular among House members.

Specifically, it is hugely unpopular with Big Labor and anyone making less than $500,000 who has a so-called “Cadillac plan.”

In addition to all that, the Senate plan has a public option, already termed a no-go by Republicans, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and some other Red State Democrats. And yes, just as the House version, it will force people to buy insurance. Democrats are delighted because the CBO says it will “save” $127B over 10 years. But as others have pointed out, the “cost-curve” goes up and not down — the CBO says federal outlays for health care are increasing in the next two years. Moreover:

While Democrats will point to $127 billion in possible deficit reduction, that is made possible in part by delaying the benefits until the fifth year of the 10-year budget window. And even then, the $127 billion is LESS than the deficit that was already spent in October of this year. In other words, any possible savings over 10 years of this bill are already erased by the deficit spending of last month alone. And remember, CBO predicts that the 2019 deficit will be $722 billion. So their projected deficit reduction, as uncertain as it is, over the second 10 years won’t erase even the 10th year’s deficit.

And then there is the budgeting sleight of hand — delaying key outlays until 2014 in order to preserve the appearance of near-term budget sanity.

In short, as unpopular and monstrous as the House bill was, this is arguably going to be a tougher sell for moderate and conservative Democrats. Add to the list of opponents pro-life advocates and organized labor and you have a bill virtually no one will like. Except Harry Reid, who thinks it’s just swell. We’ll see what his colleagues think.

It sounds like a joke: Obama has agonized for months already on his Afghanistan war strategy and has yet to make a decision, so he skipped to the exit strategy. No, really:

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have turned the focus of Afghan war planning toward an exit strategy, publicly declaring that the U.S. and its allies can’t send additional troops without a plan for getting them out.

The shift has unnerved some U.S. and foreign officials, who say that planning a pullout now — with or without a specific timetable — encourages the Taliban to wait out foreign forces and exacerbates fears in the region that the U.S. isn’t fully committed to their security.

“It’s not a good idea,” said Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Not a good idea at all. This simply reinforces the image of an irresolute president who’d rather not do what it takes to win a war that he once declared to be critical. As Skelton explains: “When the area has been stabilized … then it’s time to go home. But to set up a timetable for people in that neck of the woods, they’ll just wait us out.” But there’s no firm deadline for withdrawal, the Obami hastened to add. Well, that’s a good thing, perhaps one lesson learned from their Iraq posturing. But Obama’s image still remains: can’t manage to commit and can’t wait to get out. Not good in a potential spouse, horrid in a commander in chief.

Mitt Romney doesn’t have a book out or a Newsweek cover photo in bike shorts, but he’s plugging away to establish his 2012 presidential bona fides. Going after Obama’s campaign addiction, he writes:

A full year after being elected, Obama still does not have a strategy for Afghanistan. … What has he been doing for the past 12 months that took precedence over his responsibility for our soldiers? The answer is that he made 30 or more campaign trips for the Democratic Party and its candidates, including five events for defeated New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine alone. He repeatedly traveled around the country to keynote campaign-style town hall meetings that were carefully choreographed by his communications advisers. He appears to want to do what he knows best: campaign, rather than engage in what he was elected to do — lead and govern.

And he jabs the president for spending time in the Situation Room with “[David] Axelrod, the president’s campaign adman. Polls, politics and perspectives on what the TV networks may think have no place at the national security table. Communications staff should be informed of security decisions after they are made, not invited to be a party to them.” And he makes a pitch for his own executive skills (”During my career in business and government, and in running the Olympics, I made many instructive mistakes and learned the lessons that come with experience”), arguing that Obama has flunked his on-the-job training.

Well, that’s the preview of the 2012 race, which the not-yet-but-certain-to-declare Romney and other GOP challengers will make: Obama was a swell campaigner but lacked the gravitas and judgment to govern. After nearly a year of his rally-stuffed agenda, much huffing and puffing (”I won”), and hyper-partisanship, Obama does seem less presidential than when he started. During the campaign, at least, he was employing lofty rhetoric and eschewing vindictive labeling (back when there was no Blue America, no Red America, just the United States of America). Now he seems a smaller, less imposing figure, and frankly much like every other not-very-effective ultra-liberal pol.

That doesn’t mean he can’t accomplish anything between now and 2012, or that he can’t elevate his tone before facing the voters again. But if he ran now, would he command the same dreamy devotion and drive new flocks of voters to the polls? Unlikely. And once the magic is gone, the rhetoric is debased, and the left-wing agenda reveals itself and then unwinds, it’s hard to get the magic back.

Politico reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s threat to filibuster any health care bill with a public option could kill health reform this year — and embolden Democratic challengers who’d like to send him packing in 2012. But Lieberman doesn’t seem worried. “I don’t think about that stuff,” Lieberman told POLITICO this week. “I’m just — I’m being a legislator. After what I went through in 2006, there’s nothing much more that anybody [who] disagrees with me can try to do.”

Funny how when the “maverick” who doesn’t give a darn about political consequences is bollixing up their goals, Democrats get awfully fussy and talk about kicking the miscreant out of the party. Sen. John Thunes says the Republicans would love to have him. (Well, he’s more effective than most of their caucus in foiling harebrained lefty national-security larks and voicing some common sense on health care, so why wouldn’t they?)

But the part about the death of the  public option acting to “kill health care reform this year” is poppycock. First, it’s not clear anything is going to pass this year. And more important, the death of the public option means they can pass something without the public option. Honestly. Democrats are all going to go home in a huff when they don’t get the public option, which was widely perceived as dying earlier in the fall? Maybe, but then it would be the Democrats — and not Lieberman — who are killing health-care reform in a fit of pique. But if they want to credit Lieberman, that’s fine too. It will only serve to cement his reputation as the most influential U.S. senator of his time.

In the never-ending quest to do not much of anything to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Obami, we are told, are “walking a delicate diplomatic path.” On one hand, they are being played, and know it. (”They acknowledge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be using negotiations to limit U.N. pressure while also working to legitimize his government domestically.”) But then again, they don’t want to upset the — you knew this was coming — “moderate opposition forces inside Iran.” So they stall. Yes, yes, they’ve been stalling for some time now, pretending that the regime would show interest in a grand bargain, downplaying Qom, cooking up the flimsiest of enrichment deals to provide cover for doing not much of anything, protracting the process of being rejected, ignoring news of other possible secret sites (that would fall under the “known unknowns,” in Donald Rumsfeld parlance), and refusing to concede that we’ve gotten nowhere. It’s a lot of work doing nothing for that long.

So what’s next? They’ll get cracking on this next year. Yeah, honestly:

The officials said Mr. Obama remains committed to ratcheting up pressure early next year, and that Washington is cobbling together a coalition of allies to punish Tehran even if Beijing and Moscow balk. The U.S. has also been talking with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates about how to utilize oil sales to pressure Tehran. “Our patience is limited. The president has made clear that at the end of the year we’ll be able to decide” if Iran is serious, said Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s top official on nonproliferation, last week. “April 2010 is too late.”

April 2010 is too late, but November 2009 is too early. And it seems we are already banking on the noncooperation of Moscow, whose cooperation was the rationale for doing nothing this year. (I suppose we were chumps after all for giving up the missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.)

The result: we will have given Iran yet another year free of outside pressure, enabling it to proceed with its nuclear program. And along the way, we’ve helped bolster the mullahs and defund the democratic opposition. If we had tried to help the regime achieve its aims, we would have been hard pressed to do “better.” And if we were supposed to be defanging the threat of a nuclear-armed fundamentalist Islamic state and staving off a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East, we could hardly have done worse. But maybe next year will be better. Or whenever.

When last we left the UN clown show, Richard Goldstone’s report had been roundly applauded and approved, and Anne Bayefsky (who has spent a quarter century bird-dogging the UN, a task which few of us could endure for an afternoon, let alone an entire career) had been carted off and her credentials taken for speaking up with righteous indignation about the UN’s latest round of Israel-bashing. The kicker, as reported by Fox News:

Bayefsky is now waiting for the U.N. to return her credentials or to refer her case to the Committee on NGOs, which will meet during January and February and could decide whether to renew her NGO pass — a prospect that has her deeply worried.

“The chances of my getting through that committee are basically nil,” she said.

The nation that chairs the committee, Sudan, is currently engaged in a murderous war on its own citizens and expelled 13 major aid NGOs from the country in March — meaning that a human rights violator that rejects NGOs within its own borders will be overseeing the approval of NGOs at the U.N.

Asked about this apparent inconsistency, a spokeswoman for the U.N. body overseeing the NGO committee said in an e-mail that “the Departments concerned are investigating this matter on the basis of established practice, jurisprudence and thorough review of the facts.”

Well isn’t that par for the course. It’s all there: the high-minded double-talk (what “jurisprudence” justifies roughing up a critic and snatching her badge?) and the inmates running the asylum, and all of it in service of the UN’s one great and constant mission — vilifying Israel. The timing here is far from coincidental:

“The next three weeks are the heart of the entire year at the U.N. General Assembly. The frenzy of anti-Israel activity is going on right now,” she said. “There’s a reason they’re keeping me away — this is no accident.”

This  hypocrisy circus is the “international community” whose approbation Obama seeks. The Obami treat the UN with decorum and respect, as if it were a serious organization rather than a gang of thugs that devotes its time to silencing critics, providing cover to terrorists, and averting its gaze from its member states’ own appalling human-rights records. Obama tells us that the world community is one that enjoys shared values. Really. Which goals and values in particular do we share with this crowd?

Bayefsky may miss the “heart of the entire year,” but she’s gotten to the nub of the problem. Unfortunately, the Obami show no sign of taking this or any other incident to heart, nor of reconsidering their role in enabling the UN miscreants.

Fox News’s Major Garrett had this interview exchange with Obama:

GARRETT: The Israelis have announced intentions to put more settlements in Gilo, I believe is the name of the city, how helpful or hurtful to the process it that and do you consider it a rebuke of your efforts to stop those settlements?

OBAMA: Well there is no doubt that I haven’t been able to stop the settlements; and, there is also no doubt from my perspective that it’s in, not only the US interests but actually Israeli interests to not build settlements.

Look, the situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I’ve said repeatedly and I’ll say again, Israel’s security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure.

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security, I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors, I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous, and it makes, makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve a two-state solution.

Well, that’s at least a recognition of the total humiliating failure that has resulted from Obama’s setttlement-freeze gambit. He’s right that “there is no doubt that I haven’t been able to stop the settlements.” Yes, that much is clear. But you can see that his fixation on settlements remains, and he continues to offer the Palestinians the excuse to do nothing. This of course  raises the question as to why, if it’s all about settlements and territory, that the Palestinians weren’t enthused by the withdrawal from Gaza. And what precisely does “in a way that could end up being very dangerous” mean? Hard to see if the president is predicting an intifada or threatening Israel in some fashion.

But of course the most disingenuous and least — what’s the word? — ah, self-reflective part of this is that the settlement activity “makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve a two-state solution.” No, that was the president’s doing. It was elevating this issue above all else, trying to paint Bibi Netanyhu into a corner, and raising and then dashing the expectations of the Palestinians that made the launch of “serious talks” all the more difficult.

But back in the real world, one has to ask what would be “serious” about the talks. What deal could the Palestinians make and who would be empowered to make it? The president is enamored of talks, but at some point someone should ask him: what would be the point?

Karl Rove observes a string of bad-news Friday news dumps by the White House, the latest being the decision to move KSM to a civilian courtroom for trial. He writes:

What we are seeing with the White House’s timing in releasing its decision on KSM and other terrorists is a presidency clinging to campaign tactics that aim to dominate the 24-hour-news cycle. The problem is that ploys that work in a campaign don’t work nearly as well when you’re in charge of the executive branch. Once in office, you have to live with the consequences of a policy decision.

The debate now taking place over trying terrorists in civilian courts is showing this White House that it cannot escape the hard realities that come with making presidential decisions. Not even Friday afternoons can offer sanctuary from dangerous or ill-considered policy choices.

As a preliminary matter, it suggests that Eric Holder’s claim that he did not speak to the president about this is disingenuous. Holder just magically chose a Friday announcement date when the president would be overseas? No, of course not. It insults our intelligence to maintain that the president was a sideline observer and that the rollout was not carefully orchestrated with the White House so as to minimize — however temporarily — the fallout from what is certainly the worst decision of Obama’s presidency.

The see-ma-no-hands gambit is now familiar to those watching Holder’s operation. The same explanation was offered for the decision to name a special prosecutor and declare CIA operatives who employed enhanced interrogation techniques to be on the hot seat once again.

Obama himself played the “Not me!” game yesterday:

In another interview, Obama said he had not tried to tell Attorney General Eric Holder whether the case involving KSM and four other alleged 9/11 plotters should be heard in federal court or before a military tribunal.

“I said to the attorney general, make a decision based on the law,” the president told CNN’s Ed Henry. “We have set up now a military commission system that is greatly reformed and so we can try terrorists in the forum. But I also have great confidence in our Article 3 courts, the courts that have tried hundreds of terrorist suspects who are imprisoned right now in the United States.”

This is preposterous — the White House would have us believe that Holder made this call? “The law” provides for a military commission, so it is no answer to say that “the law” determined this decision.

At the next White House presser or in the next Obama interview, it might be a good idea to ask the president why he, not his attorney general, decided to give KSM a platform in New York to preach his jihadism and put his captors on trial. The president, not Holder, should be asked how he can justify the grief inflicted on 9/11 victims’ families and how he balances the intelligence giveaway that such a trial entails with the PR “credit” we’re supposed to receive. Obama and Holder can spin all they want, but the media — yes, one holds out faint hope on this score — shouldn’t play the patsy and buy into the nonsense that this is all Holder’s doing.

And if Obama sticks to his story? He should then explain why he has delegated one of the most far-reaching and damaging national-security issues of his presidency to someone else. Who’s the president here?

NIAC has a “good name” in Iran. Of course, what’s not to like about a group that lobbies against sanctions?

PelosiCare fallout continues: “House passage of a sweeping anti-abortion amendment has set off a wave of soul-searching and finger-pointing among abortion rights activists — many of whom thought they’d found a safe harbor when Democrats won the White House and big majorities in Congress last year.”

More evidence the public doesn’t share the Obami’s enthusiasm for a civilian trial for KSM: “A new CBS News poll finds that only 40 percent of Americans believe suspected terrorists should be tried in an open criminal court. Fifty-four percent say such suspects should be tried in a closed military court.”

Lindsey Graham stumps Eric Holder on Mirandizing Osama bin Laden. And NPR reports it.

Obama taints the jury pool — and proves that this is harder than it looks.

Stunning video of the mom of a 9/11 victim giving Holder an earful. “The theatrics are going to take over at this point,” she explains.

Rudy Giuliani takes it personally also: “Giuliani called parts [of] his reaction to the decision ‘almost personal’ and said that ‘knowing many of the people who died that day,’ and having stayed in close touch with survivors, ‘there’s no reason to put them through what will become a much more intense reliving of what happened with the terrorists getting an equal chance to explain their side of the story,’ in a setting ‘where their lawyers would be unethical if they didn’t pursue every avenue of acquittal,’ which will probably include ‘putting the government on trial’ and, potentially, creating an atmosphere ‘of moral equivalence,’ which will be very upsetting.”

The New York Times says Asia is over Obama: “Instead, with the novelty of a visit as America’s first black president having given way to the reality of having to plow through intractable issues like monetary policy (China), trade (Singapore, China, South Korea), security (Japan) and the 800-pound gorilla on the continent (China), Mr. Obama’s Asia trip has been, in many ways, a long, uphill slog.”

From the “Most Transparent Administration in History” file: “Sen. Joe Lieberman said Wednesday he would hold a hearing this week on the Fort Hood shooting and may use his subpoena power to force government officials to testify. The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is moving ahead with the Thursday hearing despite pressure from the Obama administration to delay congressional inquiries.”

And we should trust these people with health care? “The chairman of the Obama administration’s Recovery Board is telling lawmakers that he can’t certify jobs data posted at the Recovery.gov Web site — and doesn’t have access to a ‘master list’ of stimulus recipients that have neglected to report data.”

The president says all that is just a “side issue.” What? This isn’t an “exact science.” Fills you with confidence, huh?

One can understand how the Obami may have reached this decision to ship KSM and other 9/11 conspirators off to New York (or wherever the change-of-venue motions take them) for a civilian trial. First, as Andy McCarthy details, Eric Holder and his Justice Department minions play fast and loose with the facts. Second, the Obama spinners conveniently misrepresent the facts, claiming that no one raised concerns that Zacharias Moussaoui was not prosecuted before a military commission. Actually, many conservative commentators and Republicans did so, as did two Democratic senators. And third, Holder relies on bluster in lieu of cogent legal argument. (As Sen. Jon Kyl asked, “How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when [KSM] has already asked to plead guilty to military commission?”)

I spent some time today with two former Justice Department lawyers who have a wealth of relevant experience, and their observations are worth taking to heart. First, in a military commission, the evidence could be restricted to the lawyers representing the al-Qaeda members. But in federal court, KSM can be his own lawyer and would have direct access to all manner of classified material. How’s that going to work? Second, the trial will take years. A complex white-collar conspiracy trial may be a multiyear affair, so the KSM could still be tying up the federal prosecutors when the 2012 election rolls around. Hmmm. Third, KSM has a right to be present at trial and for all significant pretrial hearings, which means he is coming to New York City. Where are they going to put him? Fourth, the Justice Department has not yet revealed the result of its investigation of Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who authored the interrogation memos. Why wouldn’t KSM use that material to accuse his captors of torture and to exclude all evidence? Seems like that will be his first order of business.

In short, the list of complications and dangers to American interests is long. Satisfactory answers are lacking. Will Congress step in to blow the whistle and defund the three-ring circus before it gets up and running? The alternative is to let this play out over years and let the voters judge for themselves whether the Obama administration and its Democratic enablers in Congress really were looking out for American security or instead were caught up in some ideologically driven fantasy that we were going to get brownie points by setting KSM and his cohorts up in a federal courtroom. For years to come.

As the NIAC and Trita Parsi story unfolds in the wake of Eli Lake’s bombshell story, it is interesting to note just how it might be that many on the Left are simultaneously reaching the same conclusions (e.g., it’s all a neocon conspiracy, Parsi is besieged by an MEK agent).

On Parsi and NIAC’s side is Brown Lloyd James, a PR firm with much experience in this area. The firm’s website tells us: “Brown Lloyd James handled the international launch of Al Jazeera English.” And we also know from news reports that “Brown Lloyd James, a public relations firm with offices in London and New York, has opened an office in Tripoli. It is reported to have placed articles by Colonel Gadaffi in American newspapers.” So they have the best of the best when it comes to representing these sorts of clients.

It should come as no surprise then that even before the Washington Times story was released, NIAC was laying the groundwork to scream foul. Back on November 3, Parsi sent out a fundraising letter, which tipped the hand on the upcoming defense and those who would be telling a sympathetic tale:

Dear NIAC Friend,

When we launched the Truth out 2010 Campaign two weeks ago, we never expected the overwhelming response we got. Our sincere thanks to all those who responded. Clearly, our many supporters are just as tired of the smear campaign against NIAC as we are.

One thing that those behind the smears seem to have in common is a belief that Iranian Americans shouldn’t have a say in America’s approach to Iran simply because they are Iranian Americans. Not only is this ridiculous and offensive, it has a racist undertone with innuendos of dual loyalty.

See for instance what ultra-conservative Martin Kramer said at an AIPAC conference in 2009. Kramer argued that Iranian Americans tend to still have family in Iran and are therefore easily intimidated into backing Tehran, saying: “[W]e have to be extremely cautious about what we take away from Iranian Diaspora communities when it comes to understanding Iran. Many of these communities desperately want access to their own country. And it dramatically tilts their analysis toward accommodation.”

There has been a flurry of articles by fair-minded American journalists in the media that defend NIAC, push back and do not allow these smears to go unanswered.  Just today, the Huffington Post published an article uncovering the true motives behind the smears — stating that they “were dishonest at best and defamatory at worst,” and “as NIAC’s voice grew louder in foreign policy circles, so too did the vehemence of its critics.”

Other influential journalists have also rejected the allegations against NIAC:

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic:

“The implication that [Trita Parsi] is somehow a tool of the regime is unfair, untrue and malicious.”

Spencer Ackerman, Washington Independent:

“Any American reporter who paid any attention to the U.S. debate over the Iranian election quoted Parsi and NIAC, constantly, denouncing Ahmadinejad.”

Matt Yglesias, Think Progress:

“What can be seen, right out in the open and on the record, is that NIAC has consistently criticized human rights abuses by the Iranian government and agitated for liberalization, fair elections, and decent treatment of the population of Iran.”

Daniel Luban, The Faster Times:

“Why, then, is [Parsi] being attacked as a stooge for the Iranian regime? The answer is simple: while Parsi has harshly criticized the regime’s actions, he has joined Iran’s leading opposition figures in opposing the use of sanctions or military force against Iran, on the grounds that they would be likely simply to kill innocent Iranian civilians while strengthening the regime’s hold on power. For the Iran hawks, this is a mortal sin.” Read the rest of this entry »

This isn’t going to help the White House spin effort:

President Barack Obama says creating jobs isn’t the goal of a coming White House forum on jobs and economic growth.

Yes, “job creation” is a touchy subject since the stimulus plan’s numbers went kaplooey. And it’s clear whose fault that is. As Rick Klein of ABC remarks: “The administration asked for this — dare we say, literally asked for this — with promises of actual job totals and new accountability and oversight mechanisms, all with Sheriff Joe Biden at the helm.” Indeed they did.

So what about the non-job-creating job summit? They want to find out “how to encourage hiring by businesses still reluctant to do so.” That’s a tough one. Hmm. Maybe not raise taxes on employers but cut them? Perhaps not slap new health-care mandates on businesses? One thing is for certain: the Obami need help with this problem. Plainly they are stumped when it comes to job growth.

Well, well — it seems that reality has poked its head into the U.S. Senate. This report explains:

Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

And if they can’t get a massive tax and regulatory bill through now, how are they going to get it passed in an election year? One suspects they won’t and it’s dead. But this was a top Obama priority (”The climate-bill delay sidetracks one of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priorities. Mr. Obama has said action to curb greenhouse gases would unleash investment in clean-energy technology and create jobs”). Couldn’t he use his power of persuasion to get this through? Apparently not. While Nancy Pelosi could force her troops to walk the plank (for nothing, it turned out), the ensuing backlash has cooled whatever enthusiasm there was for this. And 10.2 percent unemployment didn’t help either:

Momentum for a climate bill has been undermined by fears that capping carbon-dioxide emissions — the inevitable product of burning oil and coal — would slow economic growth, raise energy costs and compel changes in the way Americans live.

“It’s really big, really, really hard, and is going to make a lot of people mad,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.).

Democrats looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections are concerned about a backlash from voters in industrial and heartland states dependent on coal. Republicans are portraying Democrats’ ”cap and trade” proposals, which call for capping overall U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and allowing companies to buy and trade permits to emit those gases, as a “cap and tax” scheme.

You don’t suppose a similar sentiment might take hold on health-care reform, do you? Stay tuned.

Another poll confirms that Obama’s overall approval ratings are slipping and that voters are increasingly disturbed by his handling of the Afghanistan war:

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating is 48 – 42 percent, the first time he has slipped below the 50 percent threshold nationally, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Support for the war in Afghanistan and approval of President Obama’s handling of the war also is down in the last month, and Republican support for the war is more than twice as strong as Democratic support. American voters say 48 – 41 percent that fighting the war in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, down from 52 – 37 percent in an October 7 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. Voters disapprove 49 – 38 percent of the President’s handling of the war there, down from 42 – 40 percent approval in October.

An overwhelming majority says eliminating terrorists in Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal, while a plurality backs McChrystal’s recommendation. The pollster dryly observes, “One reason the President’s approval for his handling of the Afghanistan situation may be falling is the criticism he is not deciding on troop levels quickly enough.”

The dithering has arguably done two things. First, it has allowed Americans’ natural and understandable aversion to long-term military commitments to build (”55 percent say the U.S. should keep troops in Afghanistan for two years or less, up from 49 percent last month. Only 27 percent of voters say keep troops there as long as it takes, down from 30 percent. And 35 percent say the U.S. is getting into a situation like Vietnam, up from 32 percent last month”). In the absence of a robust case for the war, Americans begin to lose patience. Second, the dithering itself has likely eroded confidence in the president, whether they favor the McChrystal plan or not. Decide, already.

Whoever convinced the president that this process was going to increase confidence, not only in the end result but also in him, was wrong. Now the question is, once he makes a decision, can the president convince Americans and our enemies that he is serious about carrying it out?

This report from Politico neatly sums up the looming collision between reality and White House spin:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage. Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.

Democrats who must face the voters next year can read the polls. They see not simply a falling away of support by independents but also the underlying unease with the liberal big-government, big-spending agenda. Lawmakers may not be geniuses but they are smart enough to see that their own political future is at risk and that the likely culprit is Obamaism. The fear extends to the state level as they recognize the impact of Obama’s agenda on the elections in Virginia and New Jersey. One Democratic pollster observes: “The perception of what’s happening in Congress is polluting what’s happening down below.” And the problem isn’t regional:

Democrats are anxious about the prospects of five-term Sen. Chris Dodd in Connecticut, who trails one of his GOP opponents by 28 percentage points among independents in a prospective head-to-head matchup, and Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, two Democratic incumbents with shrinking approval ratings among independent voters. A Des Moines Register poll released this weekend showed the first-term Culver trailing the GOP front-runner among independents by nearly 30 percentage points.

Hmm. Democrats had assured themselves that the Republicans were becoming a regional, all-Southern party. But that was before Obama and the Democrats in Congress spent nearly a year in control.

The Obami and the Democratic leadership in Congress, on the other hand, are putting their fingers in their ears to block out the sound of stampeding independents and to ignore the obvious explanation — the public does not share their zeal to remake America and reorder the relationship between government and citizenry, and between the public and private sectors. They have a leftward lurch to complete, and they aren’t about to let the voters get in the way. Their answer: more of the same! A government health-care takeover tops the list, which of course is increasingly unpopular among these same independents.

Democrats in Congress will have to decide whether they believe the polls and election results or the self-serving spin from the White House and their leadership, which is desperate to ram home ObamaCare before the 2010 election exacts its toll. Apparently, the Obama team is not going to adjust course to save their congressional allies, so the latter will have to fend for themselves. We’ll see if Step One in the “save their skins” program is to refashion ObamaCare from a monstrous government power grab to something voters might actually like.