Marc Thiessen says Obama administration is Courting Disaster

One of the most underappreciated aspects of the Scott Brown victory in deep blue Massachusetts was his vigorous, clear, no apologies defense of some of the most controversial aspects related to how we handle the war on terror, or whatever the Obama administration is calling it this week. War on man-made disasters is sooooo 2009!

Scott Brown said quite clearly, the Christmas Eve crotch bomber was funded and trained by Al Qaeda and therefore, he should be treated as an enemy combatant within the military justice system. His opponent, Martha Coakley, agreed with the Obama administration that he should be read his rights, lawyered-up and put into our civilian court system where he will enjoy the same constitutional protections as you or I would.

The choice for voters was crystal clear.

I have never read a book that made me as angry as Courting Disaster. The Obama administration approach to the war on terror is as naive as it is dangerous. The crotch bomber incident is the perfect example of how we are no longer able to effectively interrogate, or even question, terrorists with potentially critical information. In a war against small cells of people able to move freely around the world, human intelligence is more important than ever. The Obama administration has put a blindfold on the CIA.

Stephen F. Hayes at the Weekly Standard reviews the way the crotch bomber was dealt with and it just serves as validation for everything author Marc Thiessen covers in this book.

We learned that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, whose agency is responsible for pulling together pieces of intelligence to prevent attacks, went on vacation the day after the attack. We learned that the top White House counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, told him to go. We learned that the White House’s initial view of the botched attack — from Janet Napolitano and Robert Gibbs — was that “the system worked.” We learned that President Obama still believed the attempted bombing was the work of “an isolated extremist” three days after the attack, despite a wealth of evidence that Abdulmutallab had been sent by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). We learned that Brennan was surprised that AQAP was capable of attacking the United States. We learned that Napolitano was surprised by al Qaeda’s “determination” to hit the U.S. and stunned that they would send an individual — not a group — to conduct an attack. We learned that four top U.S. counterterrorism officials — Leiter, Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair — were not consulted about whether to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant or a criminal. We learned that a proposed “high-value detainee interrogation unit,” or HIG, does not exist one year into the Obama administration. We learned that Blair, the nation’s top intelligence official, thought that it did. We learned that Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights less than twelve hours after he was captured. We learned that the FBI interrogated Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before he was told he had the right to remain silent and chose to exercise it.

That’s an impressive record of incompetence.

We had a bad connection initially, but we called Marc back and jumped right into this excellent book. We covered a lot of ground but it felt like we only had time to scratch the surface. I hope to have him back on soon. I recommend buying this book, and some Tums to go along with it.

The Pundit Review Radio Podcast RSS feed can be found here.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

On Boston’s Talk Station WRKO since 2005, Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week we give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to the radio every Sunday evening from 8-10pm on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

Timothy P. Carney on Obamanomics

Timothy P. Carney is the lobbying editor for the Washington Examiner and he joined me last night to talk about his thought provoking new book “Obamanomics“.

Before talking about the book, I had to ask Tim about his amazing experience as a young journalist in Washington DC, working as a protege of the legendary reporter and columnist Robert Novak.

The book itself stands conventional wisdom on its head. Carney argues that Obamanomics is actually good for Big Business, at the expense of almost everybody else.

Just as President George W. Bush, with his bailouts, spending sprees, and new entitlements, abandoned the free market at the behest of Wall Street and drug makers, Barack Obama’s vision of bigger government is also the dream of corporate lobbyists.

Obama’s healthcare reform, stimulus spending, global warming legislation, and auto industry bailouts are ambitious packages of regulations, taxes, mandates, and spending that benefit Big Business — what corporation wouldn't welcome more taxpayer-funded subsidies, regulation that crowds out competition, and government mandates that drive more business to them?

There are other big beneficiaries as well: Politicians, who gain more power; and lobbyists, who gain more influence.

The victims are small businesses crushed by regulations and taxes, taxpayers — especially future taxpayers who will be burdened by the debt financing today’s spending sprees — and consumers, who face higher prices and fewer choices.

What should we call this Big Business-Big Government agenda pursued by President Obama? Although robust corporate-government collusion was hardly invented by the current administration, the U.S. has not seen such a consistent practitioner of corporatism in more than half a century. It's fitting then to name this Big Business-Big Government practice Obamanomics.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

On Boston’s Talk Station WRKO since 2005, Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week we give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to the radio every Sunday evening from 8-10pm on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

Two charts, one cup

Much has been written about the motley crue of left wing radicals in President Obama’s administration. The most infamous example is perhaps Van Jones, once so proudly touted as an asset by Valerie Jarrett, he was ousted within days when the American people got wind of what he said and believed. Not much has been said or written, yet, about private sector experience of those surrounding President Obama. These are supposed to be the best and brightest that America has to offer. Looks more like the left and brightest that government has to offer.

Nick Schulz shares this great chart from JP Morgan,

The chart examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

Schulz observes,

When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable.

Remarkable is one word for it. Horrifying is another. Clarifying is a third. Why clarifying? Because it brings into relief why every solution coming out of the administration seems to expand the roles and responsibilities of the government at the expense of the private sector. It’s no wonder that the so-called stimulus bill was anything but. A couple of days before signing the bill President Obama said,

“I will sign this legislation into law shortly, and we’ll begin making the immediate investments necessary to put people back to work doing the work America needs done.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell disagreed by saying,

“A stimulus bill that was supposed to be timely, targeted and temporary is none of the above. And this means Congress is about to approve a stimulus that’s unlikely to have much stimulative effect.”

Nine months later, the unemployment rate is 17% higher than the administration’s predictions ( with stimulus passed unemployment would top off at 8.5%, currently it’s 10.2%) and 49 out of 50 states have higher unemployment. The number of jobs created “or saved” by the stimulus bill has become a running joke across the country.

To their credit, President Obama and his team of career bureaucrats have had some successes. For example, when it comes to unemployed per job posting in the top 50 U.S. metro areas, one city stands out above all others. That city, all the way to the left of the chart, is Washington DC. Given who is coming up with the solutons to our economic woes, it is not surprising that the home of government benefits first and most.

And for the dreaded private sector?

Does President Obama have a competence problem?

On issues large and small, I believe the Obama administration has a competence problem.

On the biggest issues, his major legislative initiatives, he has displayed little or indifferent leadership, at best. He essentially turned the stimulus and health care reform over to Nancy and the Gang in congress and they both became runaway disasters for the President. This week, he is giving a Hail Mary, joint session speech to the American people to try and rescue his healthcare reform efforts. This is not a move from a position of strength. By trying to Rham through a 1000-page bill that would shift 18% of the economy into the hands of the American government before the August recess, the president offended many and really eroded the trust people had placed in him. Change is one thing, three card monti with something as personal as healthcare is another.

On the small issues, let’s take a look at another speech this week, to America’s school children. This should have been a layup for the administration. Instead, because of arrogance and overreach, it has become yet another cluster for President Obama. In my opinion, it should not be controversial for the president to address school children. George H.W. Bush did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did too. How tough is it to tell kids to listen to their teachers, study hard and they can achieve their dreams in America. Well, that is clearly too much to ask from an administration with as large a sense of self purpose as this one. The controversy began when the Education Department published supporting materials for teachers will lesson plans for students asking questions like “what can I do to help the president”. Somebody in the department should have known better. Someone should have asked, “isn’t this creepy going too far, are we politicizing this? No, those questions weren’t asked and a simple speech has turned into another example of overreach and arrogance.

Van Jones, well he isn’t large or small, but he is incredibly revealing. How is a guy like this deemed acceptable by this administration? What did they know and what did they choose to ignore. If you believe Barack’s BFF Valerie Jarrett, they knew all about Van Jones and were thrilled to have him on the team. This is a disaster for Obama on several levels. It shows his rhetoric about a new kind of post-partisan politics to be a crock. Van Jones greatest hits include a little didy about George Bush licking a crack pipe. It shows, once again, that our president is comfortable in the company of people many, many Americans find loathsome. Like who? How about his spiritual mentor of 20-years Rev. Wright. Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Now Van Jones can be added to the Motley Crew that Barack Obama calls friends. The most fascinating thing about Van Jones isn’t what it tells us about Obama (we knew he had a soft spot for leftist radicals), it is what it says about his second protective unit, the mainstream media. The Van Jones controversy was a creation of the alternative media. Kudos to Glenn Beck for pushing this on Fox, and to Gateway Pundit for pushing in the blogosphere. A White House tzar was forced to resign in disgrace with hardly a word from the major media in the country. Few things demonstrate the media’s fealty to Barack Obama or their irrelevancy, more than the Van Jones episode.

The Pundit Review Radio Podcast RSS feed can be found here.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

On Boston’s Talk Station WRKO since 2005, Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week we give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to the radio every Sunday evening from 8-10pm on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

It was a teachable moment alright

Welcome Hot Air readers! Thanks Allah!

More on the Gates arrest here.

Check out Pundit Review Radio’s weekly Someone You Should Know segment, a tribute to the folks who should be getting all this attention.

Does Nancy Pelosi work for the GOP?

San Fran Nan went on one of her usual over-the-top rants today against evil big business. Last year’s target was Big Oil. This year’s boogeyman, Big Insurance and HMOs.

“It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure,” she said, adding, “They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening.”

Mary Katherine Ham at the Weekly Standard reminds dear Nancy that,

Nancy Pelosi herself is in the top 20 House recipients of “insurance” contributions this cycle, and insurance companies are her 10th-most frequent contributor over the span of her career.

Could she possibly be any thicker? Why, yes, yes she could. Who do you suppose was the largest receipient of HMO money? Some big business loving Republican shill, right?

Obama gets more like Clinton every day