One of the great moments in sports is to attend a hockey game at the University of Wisconsin (UW).  While Wisconsin fans are known for their over-the-top support of their football and basketball programs, this pales in comparison to the following of the UW hockey team.  They are quite simply some of the most rabid fans in the world.

One of the traditions at a UW hockey game is the “Sieve Cheer.”  This is the cheer given when the other team gives up a goal.  It is designed to intimidate the other team and to humiliate the opposing goalie.  It works!  At first there is loud cheering for the goal.  Then the stadium becomes deathly quiet.  Suddenly, everyone in the stadium starts whispering “sieve…sieve…sieve,” slowly, softly and in perfect unison.   You can hardly hear it at first; you just kind of feel the air move.  But each time they whisper sieve, they whisper it a little louder.  The chant builds and builds until the entire stadium is standing up screaming, “Sieve!  Sieve!  Sieve!” at the top of their lungs.  It is a thing of beauty.

The point is that some words are just like the Sieve Cheer.  When you hear them, you know something big is coming.  In terms of a President of the United States, there is a very similar word.  It is “impeachment.”  This is rarely used.  Only two Presidents in the history of the United States have ever been impeached:  Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton.  Both were acquitted.  (Many people assume that Nixon was impeached, but that is not true.  Nixon resigned because Republican Senators advised him that they could not support him if he was impeached.)

It is extremely rare for political opponents to use the word “impeachment” with regard to a sitting U.S. President.  There were some extreme left radical Democrats who talked about impeachment with regard to George W. Bush, but this was never taken seriously, other than by Dennis Kucinich.  Even the biased main stream media and liberal Democrats, including people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, knew they had no grounds for impeaching George Bush.

But this week, Newt Gingrich used the word “impeachment” with regard to Barack Obama, and he was serious.  I was stunned, because Mr. Gingrich is very bright and is a very serious man.  I believe he chose this word carefully and deliberately. 

Gingrich brought up impeachment with regard to the decision by the Obama administration to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act is clearly unconstitutional.  The issue is not whether you agree with this legislation, or not.  The issue is whether the President of the United States has the authority to unilaterally decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.  Gingrich did something brilliant.  He explained this in terms that even the liberal left can understand.  The following is from an interview with Newsmax.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.

I doubt that anyone is going to immediate jump on the impeachment wagon.  Republicans are terrified because of the fall-out from the Clinton fiasco.  The liberal left and the Democratic Party only consider impeachment when a Republican is in office.  But Gingrich makes a very strong point, and this is going to force a lot of people to take a serious look at this issue.  Gingrich is clearly right.  The question is whether anyone will do something about it.

Keep in mind some other important factors.  Obama is likely to be out of office in about 18 months.  As long as Republicans are confident he will lose, they are unlikely to take on the risk of launching an impeachment effort against another Democratic President. They are also more focused on cutting the budget and repealing Obamacare.   In addition, the world is on fire, and things are bad enough without paralyzing the U.S. Presidency with the distraction of an impeachment trial.  Obama is pathetically weak as it is.  This would become worse if he were being impeached.  If Obama is removed from office, Joe Biden becomes President of the United States.  Biden would be required under the constitution to name a new Vice President, subject to confirmation by the Senate.  That person would immediately become the favorite to be elected President in 2012.  Republicans could lose a lot of sleep over that scenario.  They already think they are going to run the table in 2012, and this could change everything.

I do not know where this will lead, but the word has been uttered by someone who cannot be ignored.  The main stream media has to address the issue because they cannot ignore this type of charge from a man like Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House.  This is just like being at a UW hockey home game and hearing that first, ever so soft “Sieve.”  You always wonder just how loud it is going to get.

TDM

Governor Walker has already won in Wisconsin.  It is all over but the shouting and the shouting is near the end.  The fat lady may not be singing yet, but she is warming up in the wings.   Notice how the Obama administration is trying to re-write history pretending they weren’t actively promoting the protestors:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/02/21/obama%E2%80%99s-attempt-to-distance-himself-from-wisconsin-rally-fails/

The union bubble has burst and the collapse is going to be bigger than you can even imagine:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49893_Page2.html

The unions will continue to put on a good show, because they have no other option.  But sympathy demonstrations in New York and California aren’t going to have much impact on Wisconsin.  The Governor is rock solid and so is the Republican legislature.  It is really quite simple.  Most of us, not employed by the state or federal government, have first-hand experience with the arrogance and incompetence of the bureaucracy. Combine that with the knowledge that they are making huge salaries,  don’t have to pay for benefits, don’t have to contribute to their flush retirement accounts and can’t be fired and annoyance turns to resentment.  Now fuel this with them calling in sick so they can scream and yell because they are being asked to accept a minimum cut in benefits, when a lost of people have been forced to cut their personal budget to the bone, and resentment turns to rage.

This was bound to happen.  The union bubble was bigger than the housing bubble and it was just as economically unsustainable.  The public sector unions thought this would last forever.  They would just keep demanding more pay and benefits and their lackey politicians would just keep raising taxes.  But the problem is that they ran out of people to tax.  No one, and I mean no one, is even pretending that raising taxes is the solution to our financial problems.  Even Governors like Brown are making significant cuts that would not have been considered just a few months ago.  This is just like the housing bubble.  Once you run out of buyers willing to pay inflated prices, the bubble will burst.  Well state governments just stopped buying.

Senator Kohl, from Wisconsin is a liberal Democrat.  He is also up for election in 2012.  He did not exactly come out in support of the union protests.  Instead he gave a marsh mellow middle of the road comment.  Just a few months ago, Senator Kohl would have never risked losing union support.  Now is he is at least equally concerned over being portrayed as too pro-union.  It is a remarkable change of outlook.

Democratic politicians all over the country are questioning the value of the coveted union endorsement.  Up until now, it was the only way to get elected in many states.  By 2012, it may be the kiss of death. It is impossible to overstate the significance of the change.   Not only are the unions rapidly losing political power, they are losing money.  Prior to the Cheese State Rebellion unions could be counted on to pour millions of dollars into electing Democrats who supported their agenda.  That worked for a long time.  It even worked in California during the 2010 election.   But, last summer the United States Supreme Court leveled the playing field by repealing portions of McCain – Feingold.  Suddenly the business community had enough money available to fight back.   This, in addition to the Tea Party involvement,  is part of the reason for the amazing results of the 2010 mid-term elections.

So, just at a time when unions are taking it on the chin because of a declining economy, they are facing real competition from the Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party; they get kicked to the curb by Governor Walker.  For the public sector unions, this amounts to a perfect storm.  We do not know the full amount of havoc that will result from this storm, but we know which way it is blowing and we know who is going to get hurt.

The Union bubble has burst.  The decline will be more rapid and more complete than anyone thought possible.  It’s a beautiful thing.

TDM

I am, temporarily, renaming Hawaii as the U.S. Canary Islands.  Something’s happening here.  The Obama birth certificate issue was dead and buried.  Then, as if on cue, the main stream media started demanding that people like John Boehner and other “declare” that Obama is a U.S. citizen and “declare” that he is a Christian.  When both John King and George Stephanopoulos ask the exact same question, this is not a coincidence.  Since the main stream media is the publicity arm of the Obama White House, these actions are interesting.

Part of the problem is the new liberal Democrat who was elected Governor of Hawaii.  What were they thinking?  This guy is a hard-cord socialist, if not a communist.  He immediately shot off his mouth about how he was going to march down to the Department of Health and prove to the world that Obama was really a U.S. citizen.  Apparently he thought the prior Governor, a Republican, was withholding documents that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.  But the problem was that when he visited the cupboard, the cupboard was bare.  Oops.

But, even that story seems to have died down, so there must be another reason.  I suspect the real problem is that several states have passed or are about to pass laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to be put on the Presidential ballot in that state.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures the following bills have already been introduced on this subject:

Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

There may be many more, but it actually only takes one state.  This creates a huge problem for Obama and an even bigger problem for the Democratic Party.  Unless the Supreme Court rules these laws unconstitutional, Barack Obama, or anyone else running for President in 2012, is going to have to provide proof that they are a natural born U.S. citizen.  What is the Obama administration supposed to do?  Are they going to sue Arizona and argue that demanding that someone prove they are a natural born U.S. citizen before being on the ballot is a violation of federal law?  That would result in a political firestorm.

On the other hand, the 2012 Presidential campaign is already underway.  Republican candidates are lining up and early debates are already scheduled.  By this time next year many of the primary elections will already be over and we will be well on our way toward having a nominee in both parties.  This creates a huge problem for the Democratic Party.  The standard has changed from assuming someone is a natural born U.S. citizen, unless proven otherwise, to requiring the candidate to prove they are a natural born citizen.  If Obama wants to run for re-election, he will have to pony up his official birth documents.  The only thing we know for sure is that he definitely does not want to do that.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to wait until January of 2012 to find out whether or not Barack Obama is going to be a candidate for re-election.   If they are going to replace him, they need to start finding a candidate NOW!  Hillary Clinton has been traveling the globe shooting herself in the foot, so I doubt that they will want to just draft her as a candidate.  In addition, Bill Clinton is, well, Bill Clinton; who brings with it the good, the bad and the ugly.

I believe that this media campaign was started in the naïve hope that some major Republican would “declare” that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, so that Obama could use this “declaration” as a substitute for providing real documents.  So far, no Republican has been dumb enough to do that.  Instead they have said that they have not challenged him on this subject and they consider this issue to be an unnecessary distraction.  They are not going to fall on their sword and risk the embarrassment of having Obama trot out real authentic documents.  But they also aren’t going to let him off the hook by declaring him to be a natural born citizen.

The coal miners used to carry canaries down into the mines as an early warning device.  Canaries are very vulnerable to gas, so if the canary died the miners knew it was time to go.  This time the Canary Islands (Ok…Hawaii) may be providing a warning signal to both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party that an ill wind is developing with the potential to blow him out of office.  One thing is sure, we have not heard the end of the Obama birther conspiracy theories and it would be unwise for anyone in either party to ignore this issue.

TDM

The showdown in Wisconsin is more than a political disagreement; it is a fight for our democracy.  Public sector unions have grown so powerful that they have transferred the legislative, executive and judicial power from the public to the unions. We are now at the point where we either fight back, or we lose our liberty. 

FDR, a solid union supporter, warned about the danger of public sector unions:

Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”   …a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.”

FDR understood that public sector unions would ultimately result in a threat to our democracy.  The New York Supreme Court also issued an opinion in 1943 warning about the danger from public service unions:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

The public sector unions in Wisconsin are doing exactly what FDR and the New York Supreme Court predicted they would do.  They are attempting to use extortion to circumvent the legally elected government. 

Democrats have always allied themselves with unions. Republicans have always opposed unions gaining too much power.  This is why it was Democrats who passed the Wagner Act allowing people to form unions and it was Republicans who passed Taft Hartley restraining their power.  But prior to JFK, even Democratic presidents were opposed to allowing federal employees to organize.  Here in California, we can thank Jerry Brown for authoring public sector unions during his first attempt to destroy our state.  It is somewhat ironic that the severe financial crisis facing Governor Brown today has its roots in the abuse of power by those same public sector unions he set loose in 1977 when he signed SB 839, the State Employer Relations Act. 

Note:  Even the Sac Bee realized this was a big mistake and wrote the following in an editorial:

“A system of union elections and collective bargaining for state employees could weaken the civil service system and, what is worse, could put union leaders in positions where they could dictate to elected officials on government policy.”

Looks like the SacBee nailed that one.  What ever happened to their editorial board?

The power of public sector unions is a clear and present danger to our democracy.  It is nearly impossible to get elected to statewide office in California without union support.   That is why even Meg Whitman tried to cut a deal with the police unions to gain their support.  (If she had stood up to public sector unions instead of trying to compromise with them she might be Governor Meg Whitman today.)  It was also the unions who spent millions preventing Arnold Schwarzenegger from passing his reform propositions.  It is easy for Republicans to criticize Schwarzenegger for compromising with democrats, but when the public failed to back him in his proposals for change, he probably had no other option.

But this time we finally have a politician with the moral courage to directly challenge the public sector unions.  Governor Walker, with the backing of a Republican legislature has done the unthinkable.  He has taken on the public sector unions without apology. 

Governor Walker shows no signs of backing down and the tea party is quickly organizing to provide him with vital support.  I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the Tea Party to mobilize people.  The liberal media is screaming that Walker is trying to bust the public sector unions as if this is the ultimate crime against humanity.  Well I have news for them.  He is trying to bust the public sector unions and it is about time.  The real mistake was allowing them in the first place.  I think Democrats and unions are going to be shocked to discover that a high percentage of people agree with the Governor.  That is why they voted for him:

According to ABC News, Organizing for American, which is the official campaign arm for President Obama, operating under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee, has been mobilizing union members and supporters to rally against the Wisconsin budget measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-national-democrats-mobilize-state-employee-protests/story?id=12949812

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has warned the White House about this:

“According to news reports, the White House has even unleashed the Democratic National Committee to spread disinformation and confusion in Wisconsin regarding the governor’s courageous actions,” he said. “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.

This is more than Obama just publicly disagreeing with Governor Walker.  President Obama has a right to disagree with this decision by the Governor of Wisconsin, but he does not have the right to interfere with the State’s legal authority.  The actions of the unions in conducting this work stoppage are potentially illegal.  Obama may be guilty of publicly encouraging people to participate in an illegal work stoppage.  He may be guilty of more than that; he may be guilty of openly aiding and abetting illegal activity.  It is possible that we are headed toward a constitutional crisis. 

Where, exactly, is the line here?  Is it appropriate or even legal for a President of the United States to encourage public sector employees to participate in an illegal work stoppage?  What if the Governor of Wisconsin encouraged federal employees to conduct an illegal strike?  How would the federal government respond?  Would this not border on insurrection?  There is a significant difference between disagreeing with the political policy of a Governor and openly encouraging people to violate the law as a symbol of protest.  Obama may well have crossed that line.    

The reason President Obama and people like Nancy Pelosi have responded so strongly to the situation in Wisconsin is that they know what is at stake.  If Governor Walker succeeds, this will spread across the country.  At first it will spread to states with Republican Governors and Republican legislatures.  That may already be happening in Ohio.  Eventually this will spread to every state.  It is impossible to overstate the political significance of a politician taking on the public sector unions and winning.

The Democratic leadership may have a major mistake.  According to reports a lot of people in Wisconsin, including union workers, are very angry about these protests.  At a time when the state is facing a $3.6 billion deficit, the unions are trying to extort the state into meeting their demands.  This will quickly go one way or the other.  Either the voters will be incensed with the government for daring to cut benefits for public sector union workers, or they will be furious with greedy public sector union workers for acting like spoiled children.

Democrats have proven, once again, why they cannot be entrusted with political power.  They know how to campaign, but they do not know how to govern.  They are gambling that the protests in Wisconsin will topple the Wisconsin State Government, just like the protestors in Egypt toppled that government.  But Wisconsin is not Egypt and Walker is not Mubarak.  Wisconsin is a state with a democratically elected government exercising power clearly within its constitutional authority.    

I also wonder if anyone in the Obama administration has even considered the consequences of success.  If the unions win this battle, they will simply increase their demands and we can expect more and more protests.  Eventually, they will challenge the Obama administration as well.  Of course Obama is so deeply in bed with the unions already that it may be difficult to recognize any change.

This is similar to other crimes of extortion, like kidnapping.  If one kidnapper gets a lot of money, the victim may be saved, but ultimately you just get more kidnapping.  The only way to stop kidnapping is to refuse to bargain with kidnappers in the first place. 

Harry Truman understood that, which is why he ordered the army to seize the railroads in response to a railroad strike:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/truman-orders-army-to-seize-control-of-railroads

Ronald Reagan understood this which is why he fired all the air traffic controllers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html

Governor Walker gets it.  Barack Obama not only doesn’t get it, he is openly encouraging union workers to participate in this irresponsible and potentially illegal work stoppage. 

Either Governor Walker or President Obama is really right or terribly wrong.  The one who is wrong is going to pay an enormous price for this miscalculation.

The Cheese State Rebellion has the potential to radically change this country for the better.  ON WISCONSIN!

 TDM

Everyone remotely familiar with NFL football is familiar with the prevent defense.  This typically occurs during the last couple minutes of a game.  Your team is ahead.  They have shut down the other team all game.  You are anticipating victory.  Then the announcer points out that your team has gone into the prevent defense.  This change in strategy is designed to let the other team gain some yardage, but “prevent” the big play.  Unfortunately the prevent defense often backfires.  The other team starts to move the ball effectively for the first time all game.  They gain momentum and the next thing you know they score the winning field goal or touchdown.  Once again your team has brilliantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  The only thing the prevent defense accomplished was to prevent your team from winning.

The Republican leadership continues to use the prevent defense with regard to Obama’s birth certificate.  Lately liberal left wing news reporters have been challenging Boehner and others to “condemn” anyone who dares questions Obama’s birth certificate.  They also challenge Boehner to condemn anyone who dares believe Obama is a Muslim.  Please!  That is utter nonsense and it should be treated as such.  Boehner has never claimed that Obama is not a U.S. citizen nor has he ever claimed Obama is a Muslim.  But that is not enough for the rabid dogs on the liberal left; they want him to condemn anyone who dares have a contrary opinion on the subject.  Not only must you agree with them, you must publicly condemn anyone who doesn’t.

In effect, the Republican leadership has been employing the prevent defense when they should use this to attack Obama.  Every time I see some Republican asked about Obama’s birth certificate or his citizenship, I keep waiting for them to say something like this:

“The real question is why doesn’t President Obama just sign a release authorizing Hawaii to release his records.”  If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he do that?

Repeat as often as necessary.  Democrats never answer questions, why should we?

We all know that Democrats use talking points all the time.  For example they never fail to blame Bush for the Obama deficit.  This is because they know the “prevent defense” loses.  When they don’t have a good answer, they just attack Bush. 

I am sick and tired of Republicans always being on the defensive with regard to topics where we actually have the moral high ground.  The questions about Obama’s birth certificate are the result of Obama’s refusal to sign a release.  They are not the result of a Republican conspiracy.

The questions about Obama’s religious faith are also the result of actions and statements made by Obama.   But our leaders are so afraid of being considered politically incorrect that they don’t put out the obvious.  The reason some people believe Obama is a Muslim is that he has a Muslim father, a Muslim step-father and a Muslim name.  This type of reasoning also explains why most people assume someone named Bill O’Reilly is probably an Irish Catholic.  When a Republican is asked about Obama’s religious faith I would like someone to say something like this: 

Barack Obama is the only one who can answer that question.  I don’t expect Barack Obama to comment on my religious beliefs and I see no point in my commenting on his.  You are asking the wrong person. 

Then if pressed further say:

If you want to know why some people think Barack Obama is a Muslim I would suggest you ask them. 

Finally, drive a stake in their heart with the following:

The only reason the liberal left keeps bringing up these issues is to distract people from the pathetic performance of the Obama administration on fiscal policy and foreign affairs.

Repeat as necessary.  These are loser issues for Obama and for Democrats, unless the Republicans continue to use the prevent defense.

TDM

The fires of rebellion are spreading throughout the Middle East.  Since most countries are much less tolerant of foreign journalists than Egypt, we don’t have much news coverage.  We do know that there were clashes in Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Palestine, and Iran.  There have also been reports of unrest in Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  We also don’t even know the final results in Egypt. 

So far the pattern has been for the governments to make desperate concessions in an attempt to end civil unrest.   At some point, this will end.  Unfortunately, it will probably end in bloodshed.  I fear we are on the eve of destruction.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened.  Following is a statement given by Alexander Guchkov on May 10, 1917.  Mr. Guchkov was the Minister of War and he was a key figure in the “Revolutionary Government” and personally had accepted the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.  The similarity between the Russia of 1917 and Egypt today are remarkable.  We do well to read his word and pay attention, because history has a dreadful habit of repeating itself.

Alexander Guchkov on Russian Civil Unrest

Unfortunately the first feeling of radiant joy evoked by the revolution has given place to one of pain and anxiety.

The Provisional Government explained the cause of this in its recent declaration, in which it was pointed out that the destruction of the old forms of public life, to which an end had been put by the revolution, had been effected more rapidly than had the creation of new forms to replace them.  ….

Gentlemen, some time ago the country realized that our motherland was in danger.  Since then we have gone a step further, for our motherland is on the edge of an abyss.

If you want to read more on this subject, following is the link to the website:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/russia_guchkov.htm

Guchkov warned that the destruction of the old forms of public life is much easier than the creation of new forms to replace them.  This is the problem in Egypt and it is the problem all over the world.  Those who are unhappy are inspired to destroy the existing form of government.  That is understandable.  But it is always easier to destroy something than to build it up. 

We do not know what governments may fall as a result of this wave of unrest.  But if there is a rush to form a new government, without taking the time to get it right, the results are likely to be disastrous.  

The Revolutionary war was fought from 1775 to 1783.  Following the war our country was governed by the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles of Confederation were written in 1777 and they were designed to manage a war.  Our current constitution was not signed until September 17, 1787 and the government it created did not start to function until March 4, 1789.  It took us 4 years to develop a working form of government and even after agreeing on the constitution it took another year and a half to hold elections and have that government take power.

President Obama wants Egypt to form a new government tomorrow.  He wants the transition to start now.  He apparently believes that speed is the essential ingredient in the transition to democracy.  The only question is whether he is ignorant of our own history or he just chooses to ignore it?

TDM

Watching the Egyptian people celebrate is like watching the ultimate party.  But, following every party there has to be a morning after.  Egypt is probably going to experience a gigantic hangover.  For those who are celebrating the resignation of Hosni Mubarak from Egypt, I attach the following news article regarding the departure of the Shah of Iran.  This was published on January 16, 1979.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1979/jan/16/iran.martinwoollacott

The idea appears to be to confront Ayatollah Khomeini with a choice between dealing with the moderates or facing military intervention and massive repression. The situation itself suggests that such a coup might be attempted if the Ayatollah goes for a takeover.

No was predicting that the Ayatollah Khomeini would take over in Iran.  Instead, they felt that if he “tried” to take over there would be a military coup and even more repression.  The “experts” expected the Ayatollah Khomeini to moderate.  But moderation is not in the Muslim extremist dictionary.  As we all know, those predictions were very wrong.  Within a very short period of time the Muslim extremists took over.   

There is one big difference between the situation in Iran and that in Egypt.  In this case what really happened was a military coup.   In Iran, there was a coalition government.   The protestors are celebrating a major victory, because they successfully forced Mubarak out.  But, he was not exactly replaced with a coalition government.  Instead the military took direct control, which means the Egyptian constitution is no longer in effect.   

This could go in one of two directions quite quickly.  The military may decide that they have learned from Iran, and they may move in boldly to re-establish control.  They would allow the people to celebrate, tell them they have won, and get them to go home.  Then, quietly when the cameras are turned off, they would re-take control.  It would not be surprising for them to clamp down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else they consider to be a threat.  If this happens, the military government may be even more repressive than now.  Suleiman will probably be the public face of the new government.  But, if things don’t calm down, the military will probably put someone else in place.  The military, not the constitutional government, now runs Egypt.

The protests may also be far from over.  There does not appear to be any leader that the people are willing to accept.  The protests appear to be focused on getting Mubarak to go.  Ok, he’s gone.  What now?  Do they go home and celebrate victory?  Or do just keep upping the ante?  The only leaders available seem to be connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Fortunately, so far, most of the protestors do not appear to be very interested in turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood.  That means is there is no leader.  Since there is no leader, this could literally head off in almost any direction. 

The people in Egypt are feeling great, but unfortunately, not necessarily thinking great.  It is precisely at these times that tyrants often seize opportunity.  The Muslim Brotherhood will try to slip their guy in, probably disguised as a moderate.  The military will try to retain control.  Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the military will lie about their true intentions.  One will never be satisfied with anything less than a true Islamic state.  The other is unlikely to willingly turn over control to democratic civilian rule.

We could get lucky.  There could be a moderate Egyptian General that is both capable of taking over and willing to facilitate true democracy.   But, such people are very rare.  One tyrant is often exchanged for another.  South Africa was blessed with Nelson Mandela.  However, most countries are not nearly that fortunate.    

The Obama administration continues to be clueless.  The daily, if not hourly, flip flops on this situation have made them look foolish.  In addition Capper, our head of intelligence, said that he considers the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “secular organization.”  That is absurd.  If the Obama administration really believes that, they are hopelessly naïve.  It is, after all the “MUSLIM Brotherood.”  One would think that would provide an important clue.    

Regardless of what happens in Egypt, the overthrow of Mubarak means that these protests will spread throughout the Middle East.  They are also likely to spread to places like Iran and China.  The fuse has been lit.   Much of the world is on fire and it is far from being controlled.  We do not know how far or how fast it will spread, but we do know that it won’t stop in Egypt.  U.S. insurance carriers that specialize in global risk are strongly warning U.S. companies to prepare for worst case scenarios with regard to evacuating personnel.  We seldom realize our greatest hopes or our worst fears.  In Egypt we are likely to get one or the other.  Because of the speed at which this is moving, the lack of leadership in Egypt and the incompetence of the Obama administration, a bad result seems more likely than not.

Obama was just on TV, celebrating the party.  I wonder if he will be as thrilled about the coming hangover.

TDM

How many times have we listened to people claiming Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq.  On January 6, 2011 the government declassified the status report given to Donald Rumsfeld by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 9, 2002.  This report was in response to a request from Rumsfeld to find out what the U.S. knew and didn’t know about the WMD in Iraq.  This memo reveals the truth about the intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq.

Naturally some people will quickly seize on this as lacking in hard core evidence.  But, that is hardly news.  Everyone agrees that the intelligence on Iraq was pathetic.  Iraq was a very secretive state and one of the problems for everyone was the lack of solid intelligence. 

George Bush undoubtedly used this report to help him evaluate the level of threat from Iraq.

It basically says the following:

1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that Iraq was making significant progress in WMD programs.
2. The U.S. had little or no hard intelligence with regard to the Iraqi nuclear programs.
3. Iraq was engaged in a program of Cover, Concealment, Denial and Deception (“CCD&D”) program that made it very difficult to evaluate their WMD program.
4. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build a nuclear weapon.
5. The U.S. believed he already had a viable weapon designe.  They did not know how far Iraq had progressed with regard to enrichment.  They did not know the location of any nuclear weapons facilities.
6. Iraq definitely had the knowledge necessary to build biological weapons.
7. Iraq had all the processes required to produce biological weapons and had produced anthrax, ricin toxin, botulinum toxin and gas gangrene. 
8. The U.S. could not confirm the identity of any specific facilities.
9. They knew what biological weapons Iraq could produce, they did not know how and where they were produced.
10. Iraq definitely had the knowledge needed to build chemical weapons.
11. The U.S did not know if the processes required to produce a weapon were in place.  Iraq had already produced mustard gas and nerve agents. 
12. Iraq had facilities producing feedstock chemicals suitable for chemical warfare precursor.
13. The U.S. did not know the location of any Iraqi sites that could produce the final chemical agent.
14. Iraq had the knowledge to build ballistic missiles.
15. They could produce short range ballistic missiles.
16. The U.S. did know where most of the missile facilities were located.

In summary, intelligence showed that Iraq was an extremely dangerous state.  Iraq was actively promoting terrorism; Saddam Hussein was literally paying the families of suicide bombers.

There was a high risk of Iraq becoming a nuclear power with very little warning. We did not know the location of any nuclear weapon facilities.

Iraq had the capability to produce biological weapons and chemical weapons.  We did not know the location of any facilities.

Note:  In the past, intelligence had always been surprised to learn that Iraq had more than they suspected.  That was an opinion held by both Democrats and Republicans.  If the intelligence was wrong, most people experienced in intelligence suspected it was understating the problem.

Bush did not have the option of ordering air strikes or cruise missile attacks, because U.S. intelligence did not know where the facilities were located.

His choices were as follows:

1. Hope that the UN Sanctions that had not worked for over 8 years would suddenly start having an impact.
2. Attack Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and end the threat.
3. Do nothing and kick the problem down the road for someone else to handle.

What would you do?  What do you think most Presidents, including Bill Clinton and even Al Gore would do, particularly after 9-11?

This certainly explains all those speeches in support of the war by John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller and virtually every other Democratic leader.  It also explains why then Senator Barack Obama who had opposed the war said that if he had seen the intelligence available he might have made a different decision.  He danced around the issue during an interview with Tim Russert in 2007:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/obama-speak.html

The main stream media owes George Bush a huge apology.  This memo should be the lead in every news broadcast and the headline should scream that “U.S. Intelligence confirmed that Iraq was a serious threat prior to the war.”  Instead they perpetuate the myth by saying that the intelligence was light.  It was light, as least in part because of drastic cuts to the defense budget under Clinton.  It was also light because in response to the Frank Church committee report, there were serious limitations to our ability to collect intelligence.  

The American people need to know the simple truth on this subject.  The memo is there for all to see.  Judge for yourself:

Iraq Intelligence Status Report

Somebody lied.  People died.  It wasn’t Bush.

TDM

We never really learn how great or bad, a leader is until a time of crisis.  Aaron Rodgers just showed that he is true leader with his performance in the Super Bowl.  Unfortunately, with regard to Egypt, Barak Obama has proved the opposite.  He is a PINO, President In Name Only. 

Obama followed the same pattern he does with every crisis.  He starts by doing nothing.  He tries to appear calm and composed, but in reality, just doesn’t know what to do.   He tries to appear Presidential, but never really IS Presidential.  Then he tries to figure out which way the politically correct winds are blowing so he can pretend to be in charge.  Finally, if things turn out bad he quickly shifts the blame and if things turn out good, he is even quicker to claim the credit.

His handling of the Egyptian crisis is beyond pathetic.  He started out pretending to be neutral.  Then when it looked like the Egyptian government was in trouble and the main stream media was showcasing the “pro-democracy” movement, he started giving the protestors more and more support.  While he never actually told Mubarak he had to go, he went publicly on the record saying the time to start the transition is now.  He even invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the table.  But the reality is that there is no current leader of any opposition group, including the Muslim Brotherhood, that could possibly govern Egypt.

Obama became frustrated and started pretending someone cared about what he was saying.  He pointed a finger at the camera and demanded that the transition to a new government in Egypt must start now.  Mubarak just ignored him.   He hasn’t been in power for 30 years because he is a push over.  In addition his friends in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and even Palestine are urging him to stay.  They agreed with Mubarak when he said that if he left he feared his country would descend into chaos and that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over.  At this point things appear to be calming down in Egypt, but that could change.  Mubarak may or may not leave, but it seems likely that the military will remain in control:    

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8307210/Egypt-uprising-falters-as-negotiations-with-government-begin.html

To make things worse, Obama made a big deal about appointing Frank Wisner to travel to Egypt to meet with both the Muslim Brotherhood and Mubarak. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03wisner.html

Apparently Wisner was supposed to negotiate a play nice agreement with the brothers and to tell Mubarak it was time to go.  But, Wisner came back with a strong message for Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html

Wisner told anyone who would listen that; in his opinion, Mubarak needed to stay in office in order to oversee a responsible transition.  This, of course, was the exact opposite of what Obama was saying.  The Obama administration responded by desperately trying to explain how the guy Obama specifically appointed to speak for him, doesn’t actually speak for him.

To complete the insanity, today, there are reports that Obama has decided Wisner was right after all and perhaps Mubarak should stay:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_egypt0108_02_07.asp

Of course now that Obama appears to have decided to support Mubarak, again, the latest rumors are that Mubarak may go anyway, on a medical leave.  (That is exactly the same maneuver recommended by Carter to get the Shah out of Iran and we all know how well that worked.)

 In the meantime the situation is Egypt is resolving itself without regard to anything said or done by Obama.  He just looks arrogant, silly, incompetent, naïve and irrelevant.  It is becoming difficult to find anyone who still takes Obama seriously.

We still don’t know the final outcome in Egypt.  The word is out that Obama has put the Marines on standby for an emergency deployment to evacuate Americans from Egypt.   Obviously someone is very concerned that things are going to deteriorate rapidly.

The only good news here is that even if Mubarak leaves it appears that Omar Suleiman will take his place, at least temporarily.   So far, Suleiman seems like a good choice.  He was in charge of the effort to keep the Muslim Brotherhood under control under the Mubarak regime.  The only negative I have heard on Suleiman is that Jimmy Carter thinks highly of him.  But since just about everyone else also likes him, that is probably insignificant.   Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

Obama has now lost credibility with both the left and the right.  He has now reduced the power of the Presidency to roughly the same as the English Monarchy.  He gets to stay in the White House and make speeches that people pretend matter, but no one seriously considers him to be the leader of the United States.   At a time when we desperately need leadership, we have Obama, the President In Name Only.

TDM

The Obama administration is condemning violence in Egypt, but only if it is done by the government.  Apparently violence by the protestors is ok.  Robert Gibbs:

“If any of the violence is instigated by the government it should stop immediately,”

Robert Gibbs is demanding that the government fold “yesterday” and Obama is openly embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now we have vicious pro-Mubarak protestors fighting back against the “freedom and democracy crowd.”  What could possibly go wrong?

The rest of the world is stunned to learn that yes; Obama really is that naïve and incompetent.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142101

The Egyptian government, meaning the military, is underwhelmed by the anointed one.  They view his irresponsible comments as inciting violence.

http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/02/egyptian-foreign-ministry-says-obama-inciting-violence

They also view his recommendations as hopelessly contradictory.  He is demanding a quick, immediate, orderly transition to representative democracy, by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood.  Right!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_re_us/us_us_egypt_cairo_view

Gibbs is literally throwing gas on the fires of rebellion.  The U.S. is now cheerleading for the protestors:

 http://www.latimes.com/news/la-egypt-obama-violence-20110202,0,3875781.story

In summary, the Obama administration has bet it all on the protestors overturning the Mubarak regime with the Muslim Brotherhood leading the way to freedom and democracy.  I am not even sure which is worse.  Obama being right, or wrong?.  At least from this angle, it would seem that if he is wrong, the Egyptian government maintains control and perhaps some stability is retained in the Middle East.  However, I wouldn’t count of them being willing to cooperate with Obama on anything.  It is really hard to believe that any government including the Muslim Brotherhood is going to turn out to be our BFF in the Middle East.

This is really dumb.  Does the Obama administration really think the Mubarak regime is just going to roll over and play dead because Obama doesn’t like them anymore?  For one thing, if the mob takes over at this point members of the current government will be lucky to escape with their lives.  For another, it would be wise to remember that the military has controlled Egypt for a long time.  While the military may be unhappy with Mubarak, they are unlikely to just willingly hand over the keys to their sworn enemies.  They are far more likely to do what they did before, replace Nassar with Sadat and replace Sadat with Mubarak.

Frequently the protestors are seen begging Obama for help.  What do they expect?  Do they really think Obama is going to send in troops to fight a battle with the Egyptian military?  Or do they think Mubarak will be so inspired by the annointed one that he will just gleefuly dance away into a peaceful and happy retirement?  The truth is that Obama can’t do squat.  In the end, I suspect it will be a very close contest to see who hates America most when this is done:  The Egyptian government that was abandoned by Obama, or the protestors who discovered Obama’s support meant less than nothing.

If the military fights back, which seems more and more likely, they have a lot of advantages.  They have planes, tanks, guns, fuel, food, water, money and ammunition.  Latest reports even have the pro-Mubarak crowd riding in on horseback and camels.  The “freedom and democracy” group has primarily taunts and tonsils.  Unless a significant segment of the military switches sides, bet on the guys with the most guns.

The least likely result seems to be a wonderful new Egyptian democratically elected government that offers peace and prosperity for all.   If the Obama administration had allowed Mubarak to leave gracefully and to allow for a smooth transition over several months to a fair election, that might actually have been possible.  Now we seem to be headed toward one of two options, both of which are worse that before.  If the Egyptian miltitary maintains control they are likely to crackdown even more on dissidents.  On the other hand, if the mob wins, Egypt is likely to make Iran look good in comparison.  Nice!

TDM