Image 01

Archive for February, 2010

GOP Has Double Digit Lead in First Post-Bayh Retirement Indiana Senate Polling; UPDATE: Brad Ellsworth Officially in Senate Race

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Former GOP House Rep. John Hostettler Leads by Double Digits over Two Potential Opponents in the November 2010 Indiana Senate Race

A few days after Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh rocked the Democratic Party via his unexpected announcement that he will not run in the November 2010 election, the first public polling released, from Rasmussen Reports, shows a strong double digit lead for both former GOP House Rep. John Hostettler and former GOP Senator Dan Coats over the two possible Bayh replacement Democrat nominees – Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth:

As expected with incumbent Senator Evan Bayh’s surprise announcement this week that he will not seek reelection, Indiana’s U.S. Senate race is wide open. The three leading Republican contenders all post leads for now over the two most prominently mentioned Democratic hopefuls, but it’s not even clear if those Democrats are in the race.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Indiana voters shows former GOP Congressman John Hostettler leading Baron Hill 49% to 31% and Brad Ellsworth 46% to 27%.

Former Senator Dan Coats, whose entry in the race has the blessing of the GOP establishment but has angered some Indiana Republicans, runs ahead of Hill 48% to 32% and ahead of Ellsworth 46% to 32%.

As of now, the DC and Indiana Democrats appear divided which candidate to support in the Democrat caucus process that will determine the Indiana Democratic Senate candidate for the general election, with the most mentioned possibilities being Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth. The left wing new media, on the other hand, appears to be backing a celebrity candidate, rock star John Cougar Mellencamp, as Bayh’s replacement on the November 2010 ballot:

As Indiana Democratic leaders scramble to replace Evan Bayh in the US Senate race, one name is emerging from left field: rock musician John Mellencamp.

When questioned Wednesday, Mellencamp publicist Bob Merlis responded to the Monitor via e-mail this way: “As of now, there is no response.” The lack of an answer — which was the same given to the Indianapolis Star Wednesday — is helping the Internet rumor mill churn even faster.

Grassroots efforts are urging Mr. Mellencamp to take the leap. On MSNBC Tuesday, Katrina Van Heuvel, editor of The Nation, suggested that Mellencamp could be a “populist candidate” as someone “who worked very hard for farmers who faced foreclosures” and “a Heartland son of Indiana.”

While popular in Indiana, Political Science Professor Brian S. Vargus, of Indiana University, sees little chance of a Mellencamp victory in the November 2010 election. Hill and Ellsworth have their own problems, however, as Hill is on video harshly attacking his constituents at a health care town hall meeting and Ellsworth has problems with his base on LGBT issues.

On the Republican side, the battle between John Hostettler and Dan Coats should make for interesting political theater for the next few months in the run-up to the GOP Senate primary in May 2010. Of course, there will be no Democrat Senate primary, as no candidates qualified for the ballot, so the Hostettler-Coats race will garner higher interest from the public both before the primary and on primary day with possible crossover voters in what amounts to an essentially open primary process. Barring a wholesale shift in the national political environment, the May 2010 GOP Senate primary appears to be the key race this year in Indiana as whether Hostettler or Coats emerge victorious, in the post-Bayh environment the likelihood of a GOP Senate pickup in Indiana is very high.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that Ellsworth has officially thrown his hat in the ring for the Indiana Democratic Senate nomination, as to be determined by caucusing by the Indiana Democratic Party. Baron Hill was previously rumored to be the favorite of the White House so Ellsworth’s announcement today could set the stage for a bitter, behind the scenes fight between Hill and Ellsworth, although WaPo notes that the White House favors Ellsworth. Hill’s status is still unknown, and WaPo explains how the process of choosing a nominee will unfold:

Because no Democratic candidate filed the necessary signatures to qualify for the primary ballot, the 32-member Democratic state central committee will select the party’s candidate — although they cannot do so until after the scheduled May 4 primary. It’s also not clear whether any other Democrat will compete with Ellsworth for the Senate nomination; Rep. Baron Hill has expressed interest in a statewide race in the past.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking: IAEA Confirms Iran Working on Construction of Nuclear Warhead For Placement in Missile Delivery System

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

IAEA Confirms Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Claim of Substantial Uranium Enrichment Capacity and Raise Fears of Iran's Work on Nuclear Missile


Agence France Press, CNN and other news organizations are now confirming that, for the first time, the IAEA, in a report dated tomorrow, warns that Iran is currently secretly developing a nuclear warhead for placement in a missile delivery system. This incredibly explosive development is sure to rile the debate on the merits of the Obama Administration’s engagement policy towards Iran, with pressure certain to rise for a tougher stance from Washington. AFP’s report:

VIENNA — The UN atomic watchdog is concerned that its information about Iran’s nuclear activities suggests Tehran may be working on a nuclear warhead, according to a restricted report obtained by AFP Thursday.

“The information available to the agency … raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” the watchdog’s chief Yukiya Amano wrote in his first report to its board of governors.

It was the first time the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had expressed such concern about Iran’s “current” activities.

The report also confirmed that Tehran had begun enriching uranium at higher levels, theoretically bringing it closer to levels needed for making an atomic bomb.

“Iran provided the agency with mass spectrometry results which indicate that enrichment levels of up to 19.8 percent (uranium) were obtained,” the report said.

The confirmation by the IAEA of enrichment levels of nearly 20% clearly support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent boasts about a 20% enrichment capacity. The Obama Administration’s response was to ridicule Ahmadinejad’s enrichment claims via Robert Gibbs:

“Quite frankly, what — what Ahmadinejad says — he says many things and many of them turn out to be untrue,” Gbbs said. “We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.

Clearly, the Obama Administration’s statement via Gibbs was off the mark and one can only hope a new, stronger statement and, more importantly, a tougher line from the Obama Administration on Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities is forthcoming soon.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are the Democrats Out of Touch With the American People?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

The DNC releases a video praising the Obama Administration for creating jobs and fostering recovery as jobless claims rise again “unexpectantly” this week

As first time jobless claims rose last week by 31,000 to 473,000, the DNC had the audacity to release a video ad this morning claiming that the Porkulus bill has revived the economy and his creating jobs entitled the Road to Recovery.

Clearly, there is disconnect from reality in the White House that flows all the way down to the MSM, where the Associated Press once again stated that claims rose “unexpectedly“.  Unexpectedly?!?  May we suggest that the AP and Obama administration hire some economists who are in touch with the American people.

 

Update June 2016:

 

Still as true today as when I wrote this draft in 2010

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking News: Pilot Intentionally Slams Plane into Federal Building in Texas: Echos of 9/11? UPDATED: Suicide Pilot Identified as Joseph Andrew Stack; Leftwing Media Moves to Blame the Tea Party as Stack Praises Communism and Attacks Bush in his Suicide Note; UPDATE #2: CBS News reports Stack’s Praise of Communism

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

The smoldering aftermath of a pilot's allegedly intentional suicide and destruction of a federal building in Austin, Texas

According to federal officials who spoke with CNN, a pilot intentionally flew his plane, at full speed, into a federal building in Austin, Texas today:

The pilot of the plane had set his house on fire beforehand….a federal official told CNN.

Two F-16’s were scrambled to the Austin, Texas area in the aftermath of the explosion, but it appears now that no other planes are involved. No official word as of yet regarding the identity of the pilot, however, CNN, Fox, and other media are now reporting that the pilot set fire to his own home before taking flight in a plane earlier today, a fire that continues as of 1PM today. The tragic spectacle of an unhinged pilot intentionally flying a plane into a building in America sadly reminds Americans of the horror of 9/11, albeit on a much smaller scale. The plane involved, Cirrus SR22, is a single-engine four-seat aircraft, much smaller than the airlines hijacked by the 9/11 terrorists on that awful day.

All told, it appears the unnamed pilot had a suicide wish, and he proceeded to implement that twisted desire by flying a plane at full speed (as reported by the Austin Statesman) into the side of a building which houses the IRS and other agencies in Austin, Texas. Whether this incident is a terrorist incident or whether there is any connection to overseas organizations is an open question at this hour.

UPDATE: The suicide pilot has been identified as Joseph Andrew Stack, and a lengthy suicide note was left on Stack’s website in which Stack attacks former President George W. Bush with “Bush and his cronies are puppets of plutocrats” and states his disapproval of the “joke we call the American medical system … [that’s] murdering tens of thousands of people a year”. Such sentiments clearly indicates that Stack strongly disapproved of former President George W. Bush and further strongly disapproved of the present American health care system. Indeed, the leftwing new media, the leftwing old media like the NYT and Democrats have often used the same line used by Stack regarding “tens of thousands” of deaths per year caused by the lack of reform of the American health care system.

The primary motivation, however, appears to be Stack’s vitriolic hatred for the IRS, as the building attacked housed IRS agents and his statement in his suicide note that “Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man… take my pound of flesh and sleep well.”

Predictably, the leftwing netroots new media contingent is in full dander, explicitly claiming that Stack was a “teabagger” associated with the Tea Party movement, with the Daily Kos attempting to set the media narrative that the suicide attack by Stack was a result of ideas pushed by “Teabaggers”:

This guy may not have been a member of any organized Tea Party, I have no way of knowing. He may have been a nut with a beef against the IRS. But the kind of crap he spews in this manifesto is just the sort of thing you will hear at a Teabagger rally. Will this be the beginning of further such events, or will the Teabaggers renounce this kind of violence?

Another large leftwing site, Democratic Underground, is also running with the “Suicide pilot is a teabagger” narrative. Of course, none of the leftwing new media sites mention Stack’s attack on former President George W. Bush or his use of the Democrat health care reform talking point regarding the “thousands” who die every year because of the present system. Considering recent reports that the Democrat Party is planning on digging up dirt on Tea Party leaders and otherwise smearing the Tea Party as unhinged extremists in the leadup to the November 2010 elections, it makes sense that the leftwing new media is pushing the clearly unsubstantiated claim that Stack was a tea party member or sympathizer.

However, the most telling part of Stack’s suicide note may be the part that appears at the very end, in bold, regarding the virtues of communism and the vices of capitalism:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Stack’s clear denunciation of the capitalist system and praise for the communist system, in the last two lines of his suicide note, appear to definitely state a portion of Stack’s ideological makeup. Whether the mainstream media takes its cues from the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground in reporting this horrific attack as the work of a deranged tea partier or whether the mainstream media instead actually reviews Stack’s words and reports on the evidence of his potential motivations objectively will be an interesting test of the media’s level of left wing bias as America moves into a general election season.

UPDATE #2:  CBS News becomes the first mainstream media organization to report Stack’s praise of Communism at the conclusion of Stack’s six page long, rambling suicide note.  CNN continues, via Rick Sanchez and others, to falsely report that the anti-IRS statements were the conclusion of the Stack suicide note. CBS News headlines the anti-IRS speech, and only reports the conclusion of Stack’s letter in the last paragraph of his suicide note:

He ended with,” The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking News: UN “Climate Change” Chief to Resign

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Chief announces surprise resignation as of July 1, 2010 as a drumbeat of revelations chips away at the validity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming ("AGW") theory. Credit: Reuters

In the wake of the ClimateGate scandal, unmet expectations at the Copenhagen Summit and an admission of no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995 in a BBC interview this week of a senior climate scientist, Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, announced today that he would resign effective July 1, 2010. The Associated Press broke the story this morning:

AMSTERDAM (AP) – Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal.

His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases. De Boer’s resignation adds to the uncertainty that a full treaty can be finalized there.

De Boer is known to be deeply disappointed with the outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, which drew 120 world leaders but failed to reach more than a vague promise by several countries to limit carbon emissions – and even that deal fell short of consensus.

De Boer’s announcement is the latest shock wave to hit the large community of scientists and associated think tanks, interest groups and universities that have relentlessly pushed the theory of Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (“AGW”) as undeniable scientific fact for the past two decades. The resignation follows the blockbuster interview by BBC of Dr. Phil Jones (see full BBC interview text here), of the East Anglia (UK) Climate Research Unit, over the weekend in which Dr. Jones, previously a fervent critic of anyone who disputed the existence of AGW, admitted that the Earth has seen no “statistically significant” warming since 1995 and that the Earth warmed similarly in several prior periods of time, including most significantly the “Medieval Warming Period” (“MWP”), prior to any conceivable AGW. The British media reported on the importance of these admissions by AGW enthusiast Dr. Jones:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

The MWP has been at the center of disputes between the AGW theory proponents and its critics, which have been frequently disparaged by AGW theory proponents, including Dr. Jones, as “deniers” and compared to Holocaust deniers. As a leading figure in the AGW movement has now confirmed the great scientific uncertainty surrounding AGW theory, one can only hope that the slanderous rhetoric applied to all critics of AGW theory will now subside and the American media will begin honestly reporting the substantive critiques of AGW theory.   The initial reporting by American media of the Jones BBC interview has been sparse and limited to new media sources generally and any old media reporting has failed to mention the key Jones statements about the MWP and the lack of warming since 1995.  Today’s “report” in the the New York Times demonstrates the incomplete and bias nature of the reporting to date on the blockbuster admissions from Dr. Jones:

Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal, answers questions from the BBC. In the interview, Jones maintains that he never intended to “trick” the public about global warming or subvert the academic peer-review process. He also clears up some confusion about the global warming record, confirming that the warming rates for the periods of 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 “are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.” While the scandal has provided plenty of fodder for global warming skeptics, Jones says he’s “100% confident that the climate has warmed.”

As you can see, the NYT, and the rest of the mainstream American media, refuses to report the damaging admissions made by Dr. Jones regarding the lack of statistically significant warming since 1995 and the MWP, both of which clearly pierce the claim by AGW enthusiasts, such as Democrat politicians President Barack Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, that the “science is settled” on AGW. As Americans suffer through the most severe winter in decades, it will be interesting to see when, if ever, the American media begins to puncture the mile wide, inch deep narrative regarding the infallibility of AGW theory.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gallup: 90% View Iran as a “Critical” (61%) or “Important” (29%) Threat to US Vital Interests; Obama 2008 Explicitly Disagrees

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, accompanied here by military officers, poses an critical or important threat to 90% of Americans. Credit: UPI

Gallup has just released new findings from their recent February 1-3, 2010  polling of a variety of issues regarding American perceptions of various potential international threats to the United States.    The topline finding highlighted by Gallup is the strong majority (61%) who view Iran as a critical threat to US vital interests:

A Gallup poll finds 61% of Americans viewing the military power of Iran as a critical threat to U.S. vital interests over the next 10 years. An additional 29% say Iran is an important, though not a critical, threat to the United States. The findings come as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is seeking the support of several Arab nations for additional sanctions on Iran in a trip to the region this week.

All told, only 8% of American adults think that Iran is not an important threat to the United States, with 2% undecided and 90% considering Iran a critical (61%) or important (29%) threat. While President Obama’s rhetoric has changed somewhat since the 2008 campaign regarding the Iranian threat, an unscripted moment from Candidate Obama in 2008 demonstrates his at least then-agreement with the 8%:

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.

And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take…

You know, Iran they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Pendleton, OR, 5/19/08)

Candidate Obama could not have been more clear in demonstrating his thinking that Iran is not an important or critical threat, indeed stating that if “tiny” Iran “ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” Such thinking clearly carried over into the Administration’s handling of Iran, from the “restraint” advocated by Obama while the summer Iranian election protests (and killings by Iranian security personnel) raged and the continuous talk of a negotiated agreement with Iran regarding nuclear disarmament despite Iran’s continued intransigence in even commencing serious final negotiations while accelerating their nuclear program.

While Hillary Clinton’s recent near-denunciation of the Iranian regime as becoming a “military dictatorship” is a positive step for this Administration, such rhetoric appears to this observer to be a day late and a dollar short. Iran proved itself to be a military dictatorship by killing civilian protesters in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in the post-election unrest many months ago. The belated recognition of this fact by the Obama Administration is a welcome development, and hopefully will result in a tougher policy towards the mullahs that run Iran.

The biggest problem in the Middle East today is the threat to stability posed by Iran, and 90% of the public understands that. Indeed, Gallup’s poll shows an 11% decline in those who think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical issue re US vital interests. Israel itself knows of the critical nature of the Iranian nuclear proliferation threat, as Iran leaders, both civilian and military, routinely call for the complete destruction of Israel. The key questions now are how much longer will Israel wait before taking matters into its own hands with a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, and further whether Obama will acquiesce to or actively oppose such an Israeli effort.

In May of 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Obama at the White House and Obama agreed to either get the basis for an agreement with Iran by the end of the year or push forward with tough new sanctions. 2009 is of course over, and UN sanctions on Iran appear distant at best, unlikely to happen at worst, with even the Saudis yesterday rejecting the US talk of sanctions. Worse still, the Obama Administration has pledged to target only Iran’s Revolutionary Guard with a sanctions regime that will not “hurt ordinary citizens.” That likely means a key element of any sanctions regime with the possibility of success, an embargo on refined gasoline supplies into Iran, is off the table.

One can only hope that the Obama Administration considers toughening up their Iran policy in the wake of the recent Iranian announcement of an accelerated campaign to increase its nuclear enrichment capability and ongoing bellicose rhetoric towards the West, Israel and its own citizens who are demanding democratic reform.  As of today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is publicly stating that Israel is “not planning any wars.” At some point, the Israelis are going to feel compelled to act against the Iranian threat to Israel’s very existence, and should that happen as Israel loses all faith in our efforts, the 90% of Americans who think Iran is a critical or important threat to US vital interests will be sadly proven correct.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan Bayh Bluntly States Congress has Created Zero Jobs

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

After a day of attacks from the Left after his retirement annoucement, Evan Bayh slams the Democratic Congress's handling of job creation

Freed up from concerns about the wrath of the Obama Administration or the Democratic Party after his shock retirement yesterday, and perhaps troubled by the harsh personal attacks from the left in the wake of his announcement, Evan Bayh today slammed the Democratic-controlled Congress as creating no jobs to help the economy and workers through the ongoing economic slowdown in America. Bayh was responding to a question about his position, as enunciated at his retirement press conference yesterday, that he could help his constituents more outside of Congress than in. Politico reports on Bayh’s CBS “Early Show” appearance this morning:

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) is retiring, but he’s not the retiring type, ridiculing congressional job creation efforts — i.e., the stimulus — on “The Early Show.”

“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months,” Bayh said.

The White House is no doubt smarting this very moment over the cutting nature of Bayh’s attack, as such sentiments have been pouring forth from GOP politicians ever since the January/February 2009 Stimulus debate. When Scott Brown made a similar comment just two weeks ago, the White House went into full spin mode, attacking Brown harshly, as reported by ABC:

Minutes after he was sworn in by Vice President Biden, newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) says the stimulus “hasn’t created one new job.”

The comments came at Brown’s first press conference as a U.S. Senator when I asked him if he is willing to work with Democrats on a jobs bill. Based on his response, that seems unlikely.

“The last stimulus bill didn’t create one new job and in some states the money that was actually released hasn’t even been used yet,” Brown said.

“It didn’t create one new job?” I asked.

“That’s correct. We lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take last month,” he responded. “And in Massachusetts, it hasn’t created one new job and throughout the country as well. It may have retained some but it hasn’t created any new jobs. I need to see the bill.”

…..

The Obama Administration says Brown’s got his facts wrong.

“Economists of all political points of view, including those from the non-partisan CBO, estimate that the Recovery Act has created or saved between 1.5 – 2.4 million jobs across America,” said Jay Carney, spokesman for Vice President Joe Biden, the administration’s top Recovery Act booster and watchdog.

“Unemployment is far too high, which is why the President is so focused on jobs. But it is beyond dispute that if it were not for the Recovery Act, as many as 2.4 million more Americans would be unemployed today.”

More Carney: “Anyone can go to Recovery.gov and see that MA state and local government, businesses and community organizations have already reported directly funding over 9,000 jobs in the state last year – and that’s based on a only a portion of the total $8.4 billion in Recovery funds that have already gone to MA.

So far, the White House has had no response to Bayh’s comments whatsoever, showing what a difference the source of a similar comment can make to the White House’s response. The perception of Bayh as now being free to speak his mind, and newly frank views being quite similar to prior GOP attacks on the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, will surely rile the establishment media and political blogosphere and ensure the Bayh shock retirement story continues to occupy a substantial portion of the overall news cycle for days to come.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breaking News: CIA and Pakistani Intelligence Capture Taliban’s Number Two Leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar – Interrogation to Shape Obama detainee policy – UPDATE – CBS News’s Expert Concurs: “Most Important Event…in the War on Terrorism in Years”

Monday, February 15th, 2010

The CIA captures

The CIA captures Mullah Baradar, Number Two Commander in the Taliban and the greatest success in the War on Terror since Obama's Inauguration

Outstanding news in the War on Terror from the New York Times:  Operatives of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) worked in tandem to capture the top military commander of the Taliban, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. The NYT details the importance of Mullah Baradar’s capture and ongoing interrogation:

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.

It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.

Disclosure of Mullah Baradar’s capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan.

His capture could cripple the Taliban’s military operations, at least in the short term, said Bruce O. Riedel, a C.I.A. veteran who last spring led the Obama administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review.

Details of the raid remain murky, but officials said that it had been carried out by Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and that C.I.A. operatives had accompanied the Pakistanis.

Without question, this is the most favorable development in the War on Terror since the beginning of the Obama Administration. Noone quite knows why the ISI has now begun cooperating with the CIA in capturing high-ranking Taliban leaders, as for many years since 9/11, foreign policy analysts and even US Afghanistan Commander General Stanley McChrystal have speculated that the ISI has been covertly assisting the Taliban:

In a recent report, General McChrystal explains Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are aided by international intelligence agencies, referring specifically to Iran’s Quds Force and Pakistan’s ISI. This is perhaps the first time a top ranking official cites current, and direct links between the state run ISI and Taliban. McChrystal says the insurgency in Afghanistan is supported by way of aid given through “some elements of Pakistan’s ISI”. That is alarming, and definitely runs against our interests.

With Mullah Baradar’s capture, the pressure on Mullah Omar, the head honcho of the Taliban, who remains at large, increases significantly. As Mullah Baradar has been undergoing interrogation by the ISI and CIA since Thursday, presumably significant information has been gleaned from him and from the electronic devices and documents found on or about his person upon capture. Such information undoubtedly relates in some fashion to the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, who’s days of freedom are hopefully numbered now that Omar’s military commander, Mullah Baradar, has been captured.

Indeed, the yoke of the State Department upon CIA activities appears to have been lifted once and for all regarding the Taliban as Mullah Baradar was deeply involved in negotiations with the Karzai regime in Kabul in the past few years, as noted by Newsweek last summer:

Back in 2004, according to Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban cabinet minister who now lives in Kabul, Baradar authorized a Taliban delegation that approached Karzai with a peace offer, even paying their travel expenses to Kabul. That outreach fizzled, but earlier this year another two senior Taliban operatives sent out separate peace feelers to Qayyum Karzai, the Afghan president’s older brother, apparently with Baradar’s approval, according to three ranking Taliban sources. They say the initiatives were quickly rescinded. Still, when NEWSWEEK spoke to the elder Karzai last week and asked him about the story, he did not deny that such contacts had taken place, saying only, “This is a very sensitive time, and a lot of things are going on.”

Despite all the talk from the Obama Administration about an “outreach” to the “moderate” elements of the Taliban via negotiations floating about, it appears that the CIA’s governor is now removed and with ISI cooperation, Mullah Omar’s remaining days may be few in number. Perhaps this recent aggressive US posture was foreshadowed by this Friday, February 12, 2010 comment from previously-dovish Richard Holbrooke:

The administration has responded uncertainly to Karzai’s outreach to the Taliban — even though it flies in the face of what top US officials were saying just two months ago.

“The separation of the Taliban from al Qaeda is not currently on the horizon. The leaders of the Taliban and the al Qaeda are deeply intermeshed,” US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke told a Council on Foreign Relations audience in mid-December. “It is our judgment that, if the Taliban succeed in Afghanistan, they will bring back with them to Afghanistan al Qaeda.”

All told, the CIA’s cooperative action with the ISI, resulting in the capture of Mullah Baradar, is the most substantial progress in the War on Terror since Obama’s Inauguration. Considering the incoming fire from the Obama White House and Department of Justice taken by the CIA since Inauguration Day, including the loss of detainee interrogation responsibilities and reopened criminal investigations into the actions of CIA operatives during the Bush Administration, it is indeed ironic that the CIA has now delivered to the Obama Administration their most stunning success in the War on Terror to date.

A centrist independent observer of these developments can only take joy in the CIA’s weakening of the Taliban and the reforming of the ISI’s past misguided policies of support for the Taliban. One can only hope that the Obama Administration now lays off the continued attacks, both rhetorical and legal, upon the CIA and frees up the fine men and women of the CIA to accelerate their efforts to stamp out the Taliban’s leadership once and for all.

One can only wonder whether Mullah Baradar is being interrogated solely as directed in the Army Field Manual, as directed by Obama upon his banning of all other interrogation techniques last year. Furthermore, if the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG, which was first authorized in August 2009 but first became operational only after the Christmas Day Bomber in February 2010, is being utilized in Mullah Baradar’s interrogation. Indeed, the HIG was created primarily to shift the “the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.” Is or will HIG be used here, to shift the “center of gravity away from the CIA,” despite the CIA’s central role in Mullah Baradar’s capture? Finally, the Administration’s response as to whether Mullah Baradar was mirandized upon capture will surely come under great scrutiny. Taken together, the next few days, and the Obama Administration’s response to the above-listed questions, may end up shaping the Obama’s Administration’s detainee interrogations policy for the remainder of Obama’s term considering Mullah Baradar’s indisputable status as the most important captured terrorist since Obama’s inauguration.

UPDATE: CBS News concurs with Centristnet, with their Taliban expert calling the capture of Mullah Baradar and the ISI’s cooperation in doing so the “most important event in years” in the War on Terror:

Haroun Mir, a leading expert on the Afghan Taliban movement, tells CBS News the arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is “the most important event in the war against the Taliban and the war on terrorism in years.”

“This is a significant blow to the Taliban. In the past they have been able to replace leaders, and no doubt they will replace him, but there are not many members of the Quetta Shura who can step into his role,” Mir told CBS News producer Ben Plesser in Kabul, referring to the Afghan Taliban by its traditional name.

But the implications of Baradar’s arrest for America and its allies in the war against Islamic fundamentalism may be far greater than the tactical victory of nabbing the purported No. 2 commander of the group.

“The real significance is the change in the Pakistani policy,” explains Mir.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UPDATED: Dem Darkhorse D’Ippolito Races to secure 4500 Signatures by Tomorrow’s Noon Deadline; Next 19 Hours Could Determine Control of Senate in 2011; Link to Indiana Form for Signatures Added

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Darkhorse liberal Democratic Candidate Tamyra D'Ippolito

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh’s shocking retirement announcement has unleashed some frantic maneuvering in both DC and Indiana, as tomorrow’s noon deadline looms for any candidates wishing to compete in the Democratic Senatorial primary race. As of Bayh’s withdrawal announcement today, there are no candidates qualified for the primary race. It appears at this hour that the establishment Democrats, such as Indiana Dem. Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth, are not attempting to meet tomorrow’s deadline for the primary. Instead, Indiana Democrats hope to appoint a Senate nominee in a caucus process, bypassing primary voting by the people of Indiana. However, those well laid Democratic plans may be disrupted by a darkhorse candidate, liberal Democrat Tamyra D’Ippolito, a local restaurant owner. Politico’s Jonathan Martin explains the facts on the ground as of this afternoon:

A Bloomington, Ind., restaurant owner who had been running an obscure and uphill challenge against Sen. Evan Bayh for the Democratic nomination claimed Monday that she’s just 1,000 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot.

In an interview with POLITICO, Tamyra D’Ippolito said that after news broke Monday morning that Bayh was retiring, her campaign contacted Democratic officials in Indiana to request they help her get the needed signatures by noon Tuesday — when they must be verified by the state’s 92 country registrars.

It would be something close to a nightmare scenario for Democrats: were D’Ippolito to qualify for the ballot, she would be the likely nominee and the party would be left to face the GOP with a political neophyte who said she is running in part to take on a party establishment she said practices “sexism with a big S.”

It’s precisely what Bayh had hoped to avoid. By disclosing his retirement one day before the filing deadline, the idea was that no Democrat would qualify for the primary ballot and the party’s state central committee could tap their favored candidate.

It was not possible to verify D’Ippolito’s claim about how many signatures she’s collected. To qualify for the statewide ballot in Indiana, candidates need 500 verified voter signatures from each of the state’s nine congressional districts.

But in the mad scramble following Bayh’s surprise decision, worried Democrats in Washington and Indianapolis were taking the prospect seriously.

“This would be a complete and unmitigated disaster,” said a leading Democrat in the state. “We’d be up shit’s creek.”

Should the longshot candidacy of Tamyra D’Ippolito gain entry into the Democratic Senatorial primary, set for May 4, 2010, Indiana Democrats will have two choices: they can attempt to somehow disqualify Ms. D’Ippolito, perhaps attacking the validity of her possible 4500 signatures, or they can get behind the strongly liberal D’Ippolito for the general election. As noted by Martin above, D’Ippolito’s campaign claims it is only 1000 signatures away from the 4500 required and that they have requested assistance from the Indiana Democratic Party – no word yet on whether such assistance is forthcoming.

Indeed, should D’Ippolito submit 4500 signatures by noon tomorrow, it may be that the Democrats will be stuck with D’Ippolito whether attempts are made to invalidate some signatures or not. If D’Ippolito can compile the required 4500 signatures, and they are “verified by the state’s 92 country registrars,” the race for the Indiana Senate seat will become a strong lean Republican for November 2010 as Indiana remains a conservative state that is unlikely to elect a strong liberal like D’Ippolito, who’s candidacy had previously been animated by opposition to Bayh’s attempts to moderate the Democratic health care reform bill. Looking at Rasmussen’s last Indiana poll, which had Bayh leading former GOP House Rep. Hostettler by 3 points, the Democratic health care reform bill is extraordinarily unpopular in Indiana, disapproved by a 23 point margin:

As in many other states, there is a strong correlation between support for the congressional health care plan and voting behavior. Just 37% of Indiana voters favor the plan, while 60% oppose it. Those figures are similar to the national average and include 16% who Strongly Favor the plan and 48% who are Strongly Opposed.

Those who Strongly Favor the plan overwhelmingly prefer Bayh. Among those who are Strongly Opposed, 80% say they’d vote for Pence, 70% for Hostettler and 56% for Stutzman. In Stutzman’s case, 17% of those who Strongly Oppose the plan would vote for Bayh, and 26% are either not sure or would prefer a third option.

In 2008, Barack Obama narrowly carried Indiana with 50% of the vote. However, just 43% of Hoosier voters currently approve of the way Obama is performing his role as president. That decline is consistent with the national trend as measured in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Indiana voters now disapprove of the president’s performance. The current figures include 16% who Strongly Approve and 48% who Strongly Disapprove.

In the face of such extraordinary opposition to the Democratic health care reform bills in Indiana, it appears highly unlikely that a Democratic candidate like D’Ippolito, who is in favor of more far-reaching, government-centric reform than is presently on the table in Washington, will have any chance of winning the Indiana Senate seat in November 2010. Accordingly, the next 19 hours could determine who controls the United States Senate in the 112th Congress after the 2010 Election. Larry Sabato, an esteemed non-partisan political analyst, predicts now that GOP wins in 7 or perhaps 8 seats. Should Indiana move to a easy pickup for the GOP in the coming months, as it will if D’Ippolito gets on the ballot, the chances of a 9 seat pickup for the GOP improves substantially. As the split is presently 59/41, a 9 seat pickup would create a 50/50 split, making Joe Lieberman the potential kingmaker in the 112th Congress Senate chamber, while also putting a premium and likely more national money on longshot GOP bids in Maryland, Wisconsin, New York and Washington.

For now, Martin reports that D’Ippolito is trying to capture the insurgent, outsider energy by attacking the “stonewalling” by the Indiana Democratic Party regarding her signature efforts while activists from the left and right are pushing her candidacy strongly:

D’Ippolito said she was working diligently to get the needed signatures but was still lagging, especially in the 8th District which is in the southwest corner of the state.

She said she wasn’t certain she’d qualify because, as she put it, Bayh-backing Democratic officials “have been stonewalling us for four months.”

A DSCC official conceded that after the Bayh shocker they were still trying to determine who exactly D’Ippolito was and whether she could qualify.

“I’m told it’s unlikely she gets this done,” said the official, more hopeful than confident.

Conservative and liberal activists, with varying motives, also began to rally around D’Ippolito Monday.

The liberal blog Firedoglake offered a friendly write-up and a link to her petitions.

And conservatives saw it as an opportunity to wreak havoc among their foes.

“This could be fun,” wrote RedState blogger Erick Erickson. “Those of you in Indiana should go out of your way to help Tamyra get the signatures he needs by tomorrow at noon.”

For any readers interested in signing potential Democratic Senatorial candidate D’Ippolito’s petition to gain access to the primary, your best bet is to stop by her restaurant tonight, according to her Facebook page:

People are welcome to come in and sign tonight at Ragazzi’s. I have plenty of petitions. Just call me first because I am in and out. 323-9005. Have customers at 6:30 pm but not sure they will make it today in with the snow.

UPDATE: As pointed out by Ace (thanks for the link), any Indiana resident who wants to support Ms. D’Ippolito’s quest to qualify for placement on the May 2010 Democratic Senate primary ballot, please see this link, which will take you to a form which you can fill out and drop off at your local registrar’s by the noon deadline tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski To Retire, Not Seek Reelection in November 2010

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Speculation mounts that Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski may retire

Coming hot on the heels of Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh’s announcement today that he would not run for reelection in November 2010, speculation is mounting that another senior Democratic Senator, Barbara Mikulski, will herself announce retirement plans this week. Considered a safe Democratic seat before today, Mikulski’s possible announcement later this week could further enhance the GOP’s chances for Senate pickups in the 2010 midterm elections. A tea party-affiliated blogger breaks the news:

I’ve just heard from an impeccable source that Barbara Mikulski, the Democratic Senator who is up for reelection this November, will choose to retire. Mrs. Mikulski is expected to make her formal announcement in the next few days.

Mrs. Mikulski seriously fractured her right ankle last fall just prior to Edward M. Kennedy’s death. Due to the severity of the fracture, she had to have open reduction surgery, that included the insertion of pins, as well as the use of special surgical boots, during recovery. She had tried to arrive in time for Mr. Kennedy’s funeral but was turned away.

Her recovery has been exceptionally slow and she is evidently still in a great deal of pain. Reportedly, she has told her physician that she does not desire to seek reelection. Additionally, friends and family have been saying in the near future she will announce her retirement. Because of the very slow recovery, she has been forced to use a wheelchair, a walker or a cane in order to get around.

One of her complaints is that the health insurance that is provided for Congress is “poor” with high deductibles and “limitations” on coverage. My contact tells me that she told an aide that she should have inserted in the ObamaCare bill an amendment to improve Congressional health insurance!
Mrs. Mikulski was first elected to the Senate in 1986, and thus is a very senior member of the Democratic caucus. Despite this seniority, she has never been offered any important chairmanships or leadership positions. Born on July 20, 1936, she is 74 years old, come July…it is perhaps fitting that she has choose this year to retire.

Her possible announcement along with that of Evan Bayh and Byron Dorgan of ND will the third Democratic Senator announcing plans to retire. This gives the estimate of Michael Barone, a statistician and columnist for the Washington Examiner much more “legs” than previously. Especially when tied to the election of Scott Brown, (R) of Massachusetts.

Mr. Barone has looked closely at the all of the 435 Congressional districts as well as the 33 Senatorial campaigns from the 2008 election. He then took the gubernatorial elections from last November in New Jersey and Virginia as well as the Senatorial campaign in Massachusetts from last month. His conclusion is that only 103 of the 259 Democratic Party’s seats can be considered to be “safe”. Additionally, by his calculation, only 1 of the 17 Democratic Senator’s up for reelection this year can be considered to be “safe” as well (Charles Schumer of NY).

Should Mikulski actually retire, the field would be wide open, and it is expected that former Republican Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich would enter the race and perhaps instantly become the front runner in the November 2010 race. As of now, former Governor Ehrlich is considering another run at the Governor’s mansion in Annapolis, these considerations would surely change should Mikulski retire. It is clear that the political reverberations from the Scott Brown victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election race continue unabated as seemingly safe Democratic Senate incumbents like Mikulski seriously ponder retirement instead of a facing an incumbent-unfriendly fall race.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,