Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Name:
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Andy Martin says former Illinois governor was denied a fair trial

NEWS FROM:
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com
"Factually correct,
not politically correct"

FORMER ILLINOIS GOVERNOR GEORGE RYAN WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL

"BIG JIM" THOMPSON EARNS HIS NICKNAME

(CHICAGO)(August 21, 2007) Defending former Illinois Governor George Ryan is not easy. He was a thoroughly corrupt public official. He picked pockets and his corruption resulted in the loss of innocent lives. Still, Ryan was entitled to a fair trial. Today the U.S. Court of Appeals decided Ryan's appeal. Sadly, Ryan did not receive justice.

I am persuaded by the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Michael Kanne. As bad as he was, Ryan was denied a fair trial.

Kanne documents how Ryan's proceeding was conducted in a circus atmosphere. The jurors were never sequestered and had to run a daily gauntlet in the federal courthouse lobby where a media scrum awaited them.

The jurors were placed under threat of criminal prosecution while deliberating Ryan's fate.

The composition of the jury was jury-rigged to gain a conviction, or at least to facilitate a guilty verdict.

Judge Kanne methodically deconstructs the majority opinion upholding Ryan's conviction.

Under our system of justice Ryan was not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one. But the proceedings conducted in Chicago fell far short of a fair trial.

Ryan will remain free pending appeal. I have no problem with that.

The genius of our system is that it protects the procedural rights of people who are often guilty and even more often unpopular, to ensure against the conviction of those who may be innocent. Federal criminal law is a murky swamp, where vague laws are written to ensnare just about everyone and anyone, guilty or innocent. The system is not perfect, far from it. But it is all we have.

In Chicago we have been "blessed" with generations of federal judges who were either political hacks from the Democratic Party or right-wing ideologues and theoreticians.

So far as I know Judge Kanne is a Republican conservative appointee, who is "tough on crime." So he has no particular sympathy for criminal defendants. The fact that he dissented so vigorously is a talisman that something was very wrong with the way George Ryan was tried.

Indeed, Kanne's unpopular dissent detailing the wrongfulness of Ryan's conviction highlights why I am a conservative. Sometimes, when the system is wrong, it takes a conservative attachment to fair procedure to right the wrongs committed in the name of "justice." That's why lawyers have to defend unpopular cases, causes and defendants. They defend all of us and the Constitution. And they do so at some risk to themselves. I know from personal experience.

Still, I can't help thinking that despite the best intentions of the trial judge, she did not conduct a fair and impartial trial.

First George Ryan failed us as a state official. Then our system of justice failed him. The world is not a perfect place or a pretty place. Ryan may have received what he deserved, but we did not. The People of Illinois were losers both times.

Former Governor Jim Thompson has defended Ryan at some cost to his law firm's finances and his own reputation. Still, I commend Thompson for representing an unpopular defendant and staying the course. Ryan's defense may not have gained Thompson public plaudits, but he gained my respect as someone willing to
stand up and take on an unpopular client. Truly, now, he has earned the nickname "Big Jim."

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with forty years of personal experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com; AndyforUSSenator.com.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

ANDY MARTIN: HOW DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE BUNGLING THE ECONOMY

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR AUGUST 10, 2007

A TWO-PART SERIES:

PART ONE: WHY BUSH IS WRONG ON THE ECONOMY, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND THE HOUSING INDUSTRY

THE “LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES” ENDANGERS WALL STREET AS WELL AS MAIN STREET

(Chicago, August 10, 2007) A hundred years ago, financial contractions were called “panics.” When the stock market collapsed and the economy faltered in 1929-1930, President Hoover assured citizens not to worry. There would be no “panic,” only a little “depression.” The Great Depression which followed threatened the very foundations of the United States. The “little ‘depression’” that turned into the “Great Depression” scarred more than a generation of Americans.

I don’t think we are on the verge of an economic collapse. Far from it. But I also think that both Democrats and Republicans are bungling the economy. The worst may be yet to come.

The unsettled conditions in financial markets are the result of government-induced errors, not family financial errors. The little people are paying the price for Washington’s mismanagement. Earlier this year, government officials began to criticize conditions in the “sub-prime” mortgage markets. Sub-prime borrowers are those individuals who for various reasons do not have the highest credit rating. Lending to such persons is admittedly slightly more risky than lending to affluent consumers. But only a tiny fraction of sub-prime loans were delinquent when regulators triggered a panic.

The sub-prime mortgage market did not originate in thin air. For decades, since the Great Depression, the policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to encourage and expand home ownership. Home ownership has been growing and recently reached record levels, before starting to taper off. So government allowed lenders to lend, and allowed markets to function, in furtherance of a national economic policy to encourage home ownership. And it worked. There is nothing like owning your own home.

When the “panic” began earlier this year, financial columnists predicted that an overextended dollar could prove very troublesome. That is, Americans as an economy were consuming more than we were saving, and some day we would have to pay the piper. Ironically, the “housing boom” was helping to stabilize the economy, because housing demand meant mortgage demand, and mortgage demand sucked up excess liquidity (available funds) in the world economy. The United States was a good place to invest. It still is.

But regulators decided to “crack down” on the nonexistent “excesses” in the sub-prime market. There were relatively few excesses and minimal fraud. Rather, some people were overextended; and some mortgages were due to be adjusted to reflect higher market rates. The higher “market” rates, however, were not due to any misfeasance by homeowners. Rather, market rates were increasing to finance the ever-growing deficit economy of the United States. So consumers were being asked to pay higher mortgage rates to finance a deficit that they were consuming. And they are now expected to lose their homes to protect and correct the economy. Go figure.

But consumers were not the only people who were overextended. As so often happens in life, regulators shot at one target, and inadvertently hit someone else. Regulators wanted to “crack down” on sub-prime borrowers, who were really not that much of a problem. Yes, delinquency rates were higher for sub-prime borrowers; but those delinquencies could have been worked through on a gentle basis by individual lenders. When the government demanded action, lenders were forced to tighten up. The result: a government-created panic in which low income consumers were largely the innocent victims.

But they were not the biggest victims. Inadvertently, the tightening of credit standards for small borrowers lead to a weakening of the worldwide financial markets where billions and billions of dollars are traded daily. That’s when the law of unintended consequences kicked in. Instead of shaking only the foundations of sub-prime borrowers, federal regulators have endangered the foundations of the very financial system they were trying to protect.

First the small sub-prime lenders began to fail. Then dominoes started falling, unnecessarily and inadvertently. Wall Street vultures moved in to profit from the misery of Main Street. But soon the failures became larger and larger, and in time the vultures themselves were swallowed by the emerging panic. Greed begat greed begat chaos and possible collapse.

Yesterday. President Bush tried to “calm the markets.” Usually, when business executives or politicians try to “calm markets” they have precisely the opposite effect. Just ask President Hoover. Bush said he expected a “soft landing” for the economy. I’m not so sure.

First, I am not certain the president understands “markets.” Initially, markets are driven by greed, “good” greed to make a profit, to establish financial stability. Eventually emotion and excess take over. Markets, however, rarely correct on a balanced basis. Rather, excess is the linchpin of market “corrections.”

The president thinks that we may have a “little ‘depression’” in the financial markets. It could become worse. Few observers predicted or expected the tech collapse of 1999-2000. Solid companies were swallowed up in the panic that consumed the week enterprises. Today, people who only recently touted homebuilding stocks are contemplating bankruptcies by the same companies.

I have seen this chaotic and uncontrolled situation develop over the past few months while versions of this column were drafted. I think the president is wrong on two grounds. Maybe I can help him by explaining his mistaken assumptions.

First, having successfully pushed a homeownership policy, he should now stretch himself and the Republican Party to protect these new homeowners. He should not be diluting or endangering his successful homeownership legacy. What are Republicans about if not encouraging economic opportunity and risk taking?

Second, relying on the market to correct itself, when the market imbalances were created by government regulators and government excesses, may be unrealistic.

As a young law student, I studied one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions of the Great Depression, Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934). The divided 5-4 court allowed states to modify contracts to prevent foreclosures. Sitting back and naively expecting “markets” to correct excesses that were triggered by government mismanagement of the economy is, to me, unrealistic. We need to act.

Expecting people whom the president characterized as having failed to read the “fine print,” and in need of “financial education,” to bear the brunt of government’s mistaken economic policies is inhumane.

The first step, always, is to admit and confess a mistake was made. Then corrective action can begin. Our own financial profligacy as a nation has created perilous times. But that is no excuse to do nothing. We are still the masters of our own economy. We can acknowledge that regulators attacked a minor problem and have created a major problem. And we can fix the problem.

We, that is the American people and the U. S. government, encouraged people to buy homes and borrow money. Now we want to stand back and do nothing because other financial conditions we created are bearing down on homeowners? I do not believe we are or should be so helpless or callous.

Republicans should awaken to the challenge, and come to the assistance of homeowners. I do not believe that sitting back while people are thrown on the streets and lose their homes—and lose their faith in the American Dream--is what Americans should tolerate. We should realize that mistaken government policies created the excesses, and we should try to engineer a soft landing instead of standing idly by and hoping the market engineers a “soft landing” all by itself. It won’t.

How about it, President Bush?

TOMORROW: PART TWO: THE DEMOCRATS ALSO BUNGLED THE ECONOMY

--------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. Copyright Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and international politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. He holds a B.S. in Economic History and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Illinois. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639 Web sites: AndyforUSSenator.com CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR AUGUST 10, 2007

HOW DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE BUNGLING THE ECONOMY

A TWO-PART SERIES:

PART ONE: WHY BUSH IS WRONG ON THE ECONOMY, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND THE HOUSING INDUSTRY

THE “LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES” ENDANGERS WALL STREET AS WELL AS MAIN STREET

(Chicago, August 10, 2007) A hundred years ago, financial contractions were called “panics.” When the stock market collapsed and the economy faltered in 1929-1930, President Hoover assured citizens not to worry. There would be no “panic,” only a little “depression.” The Great Depression which followed threatened the very foundations of the United States. The “little ‘depression’” that turned into the “Great Depression” scarred more than a generation of Americans.

I don’t think we are on the verge of an economic collapse. Far from it. But I also think that both Democrats and Republicans are bungling the economy. The worst may be yet to come.

The unsettled conditions in financial markets are the result of government-induced errors, not family financial errors. The little people are paying the price for Washington’s mismanagement. Earlier this year, government officials began to criticize conditions in the “sub-prime” mortgage markets. Sub-prime borrowers are those individuals who for various reasons do not have the highest credit rating. Lending to such persons is admittedly slightly more risky than lending to affluent consumers. But only a tiny fraction of sub-prime loans were delinquent when regulators triggered a panic.

The sub-prime mortgage market did not originate in thin air. For decades, since the Great Depression, the policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to encourage and expand home ownership. Home ownership has been growing and recently reached record levels, before starting to taper off. So government allowed lenders to lend, and allowed markets to function, in furtherance of a national economic policy to encourage home ownership. And it worked. There is nothing like owning your own home.

When the “panic” began earlier this year, financial columnists predicted that an overextended dollar could prove very troublesome. That is, Americans as an economy were consuming more than we were saving, and some day we would have to pay the piper. Ironically, the “housing boom” was helping to stabilize the economy, because housing demand meant mortgage demand, and mortgage demand sucked up excess liquidity (available funds) in the world economy. The United States was a good place to invest. It still is.

But regulators decided to “crack down” on the nonexistent “excesses” in the sub-prime market. There were relatively few excesses and minimal fraud. Rather, some people were overextended; and some mortgages were due to be adjusted to reflect higher market rates. The higher “market” rates, however, were not due to any misfeasance by homeowners. Rather, market rates were increasing to finance the ever-growing deficit economy of the United States. So consumers were being asked to pay higher mortgage rates to finance a deficit that they were consuming. And they are now expected to lose their homes to protect and correct the economy. Go figure.

But consumers were not the only people who were overextended. As so often happens in life, regulators shot at one target, and inadvertently hit someone else. Regulators wanted to “crack down” on sub-prime borrowers, who were really not that much of a problem. Yes, delinquency rates were higher for sub-prime borrowers; but those delinquencies could have been worked through on a gentle basis by individual lenders. When the government demanded action, lenders were forced to tighten up. The result: a government-created panic in which low income consumers were largely the innocent victims.

But they were not the biggest victims. Inadvertently, the tightening of credit standards for small borrowers lead to a weakening of the worldwide financial markets where billions and billions of dollars are traded daily. That’s when the law of unintended consequences kicked in. Instead of shaking only the foundations of sub-prime borrowers, federal regulators have endangered the foundations of the very financial system they were trying to protect.

First the small sub-prime lenders began to fail. Then dominoes started falling, unnecessarily and inadvertently. Wall Street vultures moved in to profit from the misery of Main Street. But soon the failures became larger and larger, and in time the vultures themselves were swallowed by the emerging panic. Greed begat greed begat chaos and possible collapse.

Yesterday. President Bush tried to “calm the markets.” Usually, when business executives or politicians try to “calm markets” they have precisely the opposite effect. Just ask President Hoover. Bush said he expected a “soft landing” for the economy. I’m not so sure.

First, I am not certain the president understands “markets.” Initially, markets are driven by greed, “good” greed to make a profit, to establish financial stability. Eventually emotion and excess take over. Markets, however, rarely correct on a balanced basis. Rather, excess is the linchpin of market “corrections.”

The president thinks that we may have a “little ‘depression’” in the financial markets. It could become worse. Few observers predicted or expected the tech collapse of 1999-2000. Solid companies were swallowed up in the panic that consumed the week enterprises. Today, people who only recently touted homebuilding stocks are contemplating bankruptcies by the same companies.

I have seen this chaotic and uncontrolled situation develop over the past few months while versions of this column were drafted. I think the president is wrong on two grounds. Maybe I can help him by explaining his mistaken assumptions.

First, having successfully pushed a homeownership policy, he should now stretch himself and the Republican Party to protect these new homeowners. He should not be diluting or endangering his successful homeownership legacy. What are Republicans about if not encouraging economic opportunity and risk taking?

Second, relying on the market to correct itself, when the market imbalances were created by government regulators and government excesses, may be unrealistic.

As a young law student, I studied one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions of the Great Depression, Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934). The divided 5-4 court allowed states to modify contracts to prevent foreclosures. Sitting back and naively expecting “markets” to correct excesses that were triggered by government mismanagement of the economy is, to me, unrealistic. We need to act.

Expecting people whom the president characterized as having failed to read the “fine print,” and in need of “financial education,” to bear the brunt of government’s mistaken economic policies is inhumane.

The first step, always, is to admit and confess a mistake was made. Then corrective action can begin. Our own financial profligacy as a nation has created perilous times. But that is no excuse to do nothing. We are still the masters of our own economy. We can acknowledge that regulators attacked a minor problem and have created a major problem. And we can fix the problem.

We, that is the American people and the U. S. government, encouraged people to buy homes and borrow money. Now we want to stand back and do nothing because other financial conditions we created are bearing down on homeowners? I do not believe we are or should be so helpless or callous.

Republicans should awaken to the challenge, and come to the assistance of homeowners. I do not believe that sitting back while people are thrown on the streets and lose their homes—and lose their faith in the American Dream--is what Americans should tolerate. We should realize that mistaken government policies created the excesses, and we should try to engineer a soft landing instead of standing idly by and hoping the market engineers a “soft landing” all by itself. It won’t.

How about it, President Bush?

TOMORROW: PART TWO: THE DEMOCRATS ALSO BUNGLED THE ECONOMY

--------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. Copyright Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and international politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. He holds a B.S. in Economic History and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Illinois. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639 Web sites: AndyforUSSenator.com

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR AUGUST 10, 2007

HOW DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE BUNGLING THE ECONOMY

A TWO-PART SERIES:

PART ONE: WHY BUSH IS WRONG ON THE ECONOMY, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND THE HOUSING INDUSTRY

THE “LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES” ENDANGERS WALL STREET AS WELL AS MAIN STREET

(Chicago, August 10, 2007) A hundred years ago, financial contractions were called “panics.” When the stock market collapsed and the economy faltered in 1929-1930, President Hoover assured citizens not to worry. There would be no “panic,” only a little “depression.” The Great Depression which followed threatened the very foundations of the United States. The “little ‘depression’” that turned into the “Great Depression” scarred more than a generation of Americans.

I don’t think we are on the verge of an economic collapse. Far from it. But I also think that both Democrats and Republicans are bungling the economy. The worst may be yet to come.

The unsettled conditions in financial markets are the result of government-induced errors, not family financial errors. The little people are paying the price for Washington’s mismanagement. Earlier this year, government officials began to criticize conditions in the “sub-prime” mortgage markets. Sub-prime borrowers are those individuals who for various reasons do not have the highest credit rating. Lending to such persons is admittedly slightly more risky than lending to affluent consumers. But only a tiny fraction of sub-prime loans were delinquent when regulators triggered a panic.

The sub-prime mortgage market did not originate in thin air. For decades, since the Great Depression, the policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to encourage and expand home ownership. Home ownership has been growing and recently reached record levels, before starting to taper off. So government allowed lenders to lend, and allowed markets to function, in furtherance of a national economic policy to encourage home ownership. And it worked. There is nothing like owning your own home.

When the “panic” began earlier this year, financial columnists predicted that an overextended dollar could prove very troublesome. That is, Americans as an economy were consuming more than we were saving, and some day we would have to pay the piper. Ironically, the “housing boom” was helping to stabilize the economy, because housing demand meant mortgage demand, and mortgage demand sucked up excess liquidity (available funds) in the world economy. The United States was a good place to invest. It still is.

But regulators decided to “crack down” on the nonexistent “excesses” in the sub-prime market. There were relatively few excesses and minimal fraud. Rather, some people were overextended; and some mortgages were due to be adjusted to reflect higher market rates. The higher “market” rates, however, were not due to any misfeasance by homeowners. Rather, market rates were increasing to finance the ever-growing deficit economy of the United States. So consumers were being asked to pay higher mortgage rates to finance a deficit that they were consuming. And they are now expected to lose their homes to protect and correct the economy. Go figure.

But consumers were not the only people who were overextended. As so often happens in life, regulators shot at one target, and inadvertently hit someone else. Regulators wanted to “crack down” on sub-prime borrowers, who were really not that much of a problem. Yes, delinquency rates were higher for sub-prime borrowers; but those delinquencies could have been worked through on a gentle basis by individual lenders. When the government demanded action, lenders were forced to tighten up. The result: a government-created panic in which low income consumers were largely the innocent victims.

But they were not the biggest victims. Inadvertently, the tightening of credit standards for small borrowers lead to a weakening of the worldwide financial markets where billions and billions of dollars are traded daily. That’s when the law of unintended consequences kicked in. Instead of shaking only the foundations of sub-prime borrowers, federal regulators have endangered the foundations of the very financial system they were trying to protect.

First the small sub-prime lenders began to fail. Then dominoes started falling, unnecessarily and inadvertently. Wall Street vultures moved in to profit from the misery of Main Street. But soon the failures became larger and larger, and in time the vultures themselves were swallowed by the emerging panic. Greed begat greed begat chaos and possible collapse.

Yesterday. President Bush tried to “calm the markets.” Usually, when business executives or politicians try to “calm markets” they have precisely the opposite effect. Just ask President Hoover. Bush said he expected a “soft landing” for the economy. I’m not so sure.

First, I am not certain the president understands “markets.” Initially, markets are driven by greed, “good” greed to make a profit, to establish financial stability. Eventually emotion and excess take over. Markets, however, rarely correct on a balanced basis. Rather, excess is the linchpin of market “corrections.”

The president thinks that we may have a “little ‘depression’” in the financial markets. It could become worse. Few observers predicted or expected the tech collapse of 1999-2000. Solid companies were swallowed up in the panic that consumed the week enterprises. Today, people who only recently touted homebuilding stocks are contemplating bankruptcies by the same companies.

I have seen this chaotic and uncontrolled situation develop over the past few months while versions of this column were drafted. I think the president is wrong on two grounds. Maybe I can help him by explaining his mistaken assumptions.

First, having successfully pushed a homeownership policy, he should now stretch himself and the Republican Party to protect these new homeowners. He should not be diluting or endangering his successful homeownership legacy. What are Republicans about if not encouraging economic opportunity and risk taking?

Second, relying on the market to correct itself, when the market imbalances were created by government regulators and government excesses, may be unrealistic.

As a young law student, I studied one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions of the Great Depression, Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398 (1934). The divided 5-4 court allowed states to modify contracts to prevent foreclosures. Sitting back and naively expecting “markets” to correct excesses that were triggered by government mismanagement of the economy is, to me, unrealistic. We need to act.

Expecting people whom the president characterized as having failed to read the “fine print,” and in need of “financial education,” to bear the brunt of government’s mistaken economic policies is inhumane.

The first step, always, is to admit and confess a mistake was made. Then corrective action can begin. Our own financial profligacy as a nation has created perilous times. But that is no excuse to do nothing. We are still the masters of our own economy. We can acknowledge that regulators attacked a minor problem and have created a major problem. And we can fix the problem.

We, that is the American people and the U. S. government, encouraged people to buy homes and borrow money. Now we want to stand back and do nothing because other financial conditions we created are bearing down on homeowners? I do not believe we are or should be so helpless or callous.

Republicans should awaken to the challenge, and come to the assistance of homeowners. I do not believe that sitting back while people are thrown on the streets and lose their homes—and lose their faith in the American Dream--is what Americans should tolerate. We should realize that mistaken government policies created the excesses, and we should try to engineer a soft landing instead of standing idly by and hoping the market engineers a “soft landing” all by itself. It won’t.

How about it, President Bush?

TOMORROW: PART TWO: THE DEMOCRATS ALSO BUNGLED THE ECONOMY

--------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. Copyright Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and international politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. He holds a B.S. in Economic History and Juris Doctor degrees from the University of Illinois. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639 Web sites: AndyforUSSenator.com

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Andy Martin on Obama, Clinton and nuclear weapons

NEWS FROM:
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

"Factually correct,
not politically correct"

ANDY MARTIN ON "BOMBARDIER BARACK" OBAMA AND "HELLFIRE HILLARY" CLINTON

DEMOCRATS BEGIN TO ECLIPSE REPUBLICANS WITH THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ASIA

"BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAQ" SOUNDS PRETTY TAME BY COMPARISON

(CHICAGO)(August 5, 2007) Almost exactly fifty years ago, in July 1957, Senator John F. Kennedy caused a foreign policy commotion by condemning America's inaction on Algerian independence. The reaction from Paris was fast in coming. "Who is this Senator Kennedy and how is he making foreign policy?"

This past week Barack Obama let the cat out of the bag, and raised the obvious issue that our policy against Al Qaeda is a failure. The terrorist organization has regrouped in Pakistan, and poses an increasing threat to the United States. Obama said he would not hesitate to attack terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan's "tribal areas." He later fumbled over whether he would use nuclear weapons to do so.

Air Marshal "Bomber Harris," the British commander who bombed the Third Reich into ashes, must be smiling. General Curtis E. LeMay, my old commanding officer, who threatened to "bomb our enemies into the stone age," must be stunned. Hillary Clinton, wife of draft dodger Bill, will not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. What!

Well, well, well.

The use of nuclear weapons has not been in such vogue since the 1950's.

The Republicans look like tame tabby cats in comparison to the suddenly muscular bombardiers in the Democratic Party. Except for Republican congressman Tom Tancredo, who wants to bomb the holy sites of Islam. Fortunately, Tancredo is no-big-deal-o.

A few months ago, Senator John McCain was excoriated for singing a ditty "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq." There was no media criticism when Clinton put her finger on the nuclear trigger and said she would not rule out the use of those weapons. Was that Bill's advice? Nuclear pillow talk?

And, as Kennedy did in 1957, Obama is causing an overseas furor in 2007. The Pakistani government has condemned Obama's suggestions. George Bush apparently took notice. In a story with no major sourcing, the New York Post stated August 4th that Bush told Pakistani Dictator Musharraf that Bush condemned Obama's "unsavory" suggestions.

What is happening to the presidential campaign when the Democrats are suddenly falling over each other to appear tough guys, and the Republicans are sitting quietly on the sidelines?

Reality is setting in.

The "netroots" were in Chicago this weekend (more of them in a companion column). The Democratic Party's extreme lefties were singing songs of surrender in the Middle East, and dreaming of measuring their offices for carpet in a new Democratic administration. Well, well, well again.

Contrary to what mainstream pundits say, my instincts tell me that the American people are totally undecided. They are disgusted with the Republican incompetence and hubris in the Middle East. But they are equally skeptical of the Democrats. Forget what the polls say about Bush. The presidential race is wide open. For either Republicans or Democrats to win or lose.

Obama found that he could no longer namby pamby his way to the nomination. Hillary was stealing his bombs. And Clinton could not appear to be indecisive when Bombardier Barack was ready to launch into Waziristan.

The reality, of course, is vastly different from what Obama and Clinton suppose or propose. I know; I've been there. The "ungoverned" areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are not a place to use nuclear weapons. So, Barry O doesn't have to worry. And, no, Hillary, you can release your trigger finger. Osama Bin Laden is not going to be brought down with nuclear weapons.

Rather, the United States and its allies will have to fight a counterinsurgency campaign in Pakistan using CIA troops and special operations units. The Democrats probably know that. Maybe they are just falling over themselves to honor the memory of General LeMay and Bomber Harris.

And poor, old Senator John McCain, who actually dropped bombs on Hanoi, is left behind as the Democrats zoom ahead with their nuclear weapons. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb McCain.

But certain inevitable truths are slowly oozing to the surface in the Democratic Party's pre-primary season:

First, Pakistan--Musharraf's defenses notwithstanding--has totally failed to eradicate the terrorist threat, and he is completely incapable and unwilling to do so. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are increasing in strength.

Second, an open invasion of Pakistan is not in the cards. It won’t happen. Finding and killing Bin Laden & Co. is a classic special operations mission. That operation is already in progress from a control center at Baghram Air Base in Kabul.

Third, bravado sells. Obama got an honorable mention from the Wall Street Journal ("Barack Obama, Neocon") and from New York Post columnist John Podhoretz ("Thanks Barack").

Finally, the Democrats are coming to the realization that as tattered as the Republicans may appear to be, the American people are not going to turn the White House over to surrender junkies and screaming "netroots" sissies.

National security is still the first responsibility of the federal government. Neither party to date has convinced the American people. It remains to be seen whether the Democrats' current bellicosity will resonate with their primary voting base. I have my doubts. Most Democrats have come to conflate the failures in Iraq with the need to combat terror. They should be forgiven; George Bush made/makes the same mistake. But Iraq never was the terrorist hornet's nest. The terrorism threat is real. It will not go away. Not now. Not soon.

As for Obama and Clinton, Bombs Away. "Into the air junior birdmen…"
------------------------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. He is America's most respected independent foreign policy analyst. Andy has been traveling to the Middle East and Asia since 1970, and served as a Baghdad Bureau Chief in 2003. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com; AndyforUSSenator.com.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

ANDY MARTIN ON "OBAMA THE CONQUEROR"

NEWS FROM:
ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

"Factually correct,
not politically correct"

ANDY MARTIN ON "OBAMA THE CONQUEROR"

PART ONE OF A TWO-PART SERIES: "THE DEMOCRATS' DELUSIONS ON FOREIGN POLICY (AND MAYBE SOME REPUBLICANS TOO)"

ANDY'S "BARRY O" FIRES A SLAP SHOT AT RIGHT-WING, LEFT-WING IN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

CAMPAIGNS MUST ADDRESS A COMING "SANCTUARY GAP"

OBAMA TOUCHES THE "THIRD RAIL OF FOREIGN POLICY" WITH SPEECH RAISING ISSUE OF PAKISTAN'S AL QAEDA SANCTUARIES

(CHICAGO)(August 2, 2007) I don't often get to defend Barry Obama. My earlier columns this year have done a pioneering job of exposing his prevarications and evasions. But this one's for Barack. He has managed to fire a slap shot at both the Democrats and Republicans with his foreign policy speech yesterday.

First, the obvious background for those who do not wait breathlessly for Anderson Cooper and YouTube users to feed you foreign policy perspective. In the recent CNN/YouTube debate, Obama said he was prepared to meet with "bad" foreign leaders without any preconditions. Hillary Clinton called that "irresponsible and naïve." Obama's remarks were no more "irresponsible and naïve" than the eight years of the (Bill) Clinton White House.

Yesterday Obama said he would use "actionable intelligence" to take action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal areas if Pakistani authorities refuse to pursue terrorist sanctuaries. Well, what's controversial about that?

At ContrarianCommentary.com we prize our reputation for independence and integrity (and foreign policy insight and expertise). And so while we do not hesitate to trash Barry O for his personal nonsense, we will salute him for touching the third rail of foreign policy: What to do with Pakistan and the Al Qaeda sanctuaries? The New York Post is in a paroxysm today, [http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/news/nationalnews/obama__id_invade_ally_nationalnews_charles_hurt____________bureau_chief.htm] showing Obama in a Dukakis-like pose sticking his head out of a tank. "Barack the Conqueror" seems to be their subtext. A Post columnist calls Obama's speech a "blunder." The Post's editorial page calls Obama's remarks a "bomb." So surely the left is celebrating?

Not on your life. The extreme left of the Democratic Party has also gone into a feeding frenzy. What? Obama? Basketball Barry? Pop and grandpop Muslims? Invade Pakistan? The Democratic Party's also-ran presidential candidates have also attacked Obama for his remarks.

Muslims have not yet been heard from, but they will no doubt be squealing as loudly as Republicans and Democrats at Obama's suggestion.

Obama is to be congratulated for exposing the nonsense in both parties.

His remarks expose the utter failure of the tough talking Republicans to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive" six (6!) years after he bombed New York. Bush has failed to expand our military and has starved the Afghanistan mission to ramp up U. S. Forces in Iraq. Bush has allowed "Busharraf" to play games with tens of billions of U. S. aid dollars, promising action but mainly delivering low-level Al Qaeda operatives, the Pakistani version of "round up the usual suspects."

So, to be honest, President Bush has been a failure in coming up with an effective strategy to eliminate Al Qaeda. More critically, he lacks any policy to eliminate Al Qaeda's sanctuaries in the "tribal areas" of Pakistan.

The issue of what to do with Al Qaeda's sanctuaries will be the foreign policy issue in the presidential campaign. Obama has put that question on the table. Neither party has a meaningful response. Ladies and gentlemen: what are you going to do about the "Sanctuary Gap." Unlike the imaginary "Missile Gap" in 1960, the absence of any proposal to deal with "the Pakistani problem" is a real issue in 2008.

The Republicans' "see no evil" pretend policy will not work, because sooner or later Al Qaeda will strike again. And when it does the party-in-power will be condemned for allowing the sanctuaries t
o exist.

But the Democrats "play dough" policy of pretending the sanctuaries are not a problem also offers no solution.

Obviously stung, both parties are trying to misrepresent what Obama said yesterday.

Obama did not say he would invade Pakistan with an army. The attempt to portray Barry's suggestions as some sort of "Obama the Conqueror" plan is ridiculous. He made no such proposal. Generals make those types of decisions. Obama, ever the cautious-one, would allow generals to make tactical decisions. He said he would act on intelligence. In principle, that has been U. S. policy since Bill Clinton's days. Where Obama went further is to direct that "action" at Pakistan's tribal areas.

What is so sacred about an area of the world where no government exercises effective control, and where we have allowed sanctuaries to develop? Good question. How do we deal with Osama-in-the-mountains? Obama has asked the right question and given a respectable stock answer. Give chase to Osama, wherever he is found. With all due respect to my Republican colleagues, Bush & Co. have had six years to catch Osama and failed miserably at the task.

"We can't find him" is not going to be an acceptable response in 2008 when the CIA says Al Qaeda is a growing threat, all managed from a mountain retreat somewhere in an "ungovernable" and "ungoverned" area of the world.

Republicans as well as Democrats will need to address the sanctuary issue. I had already identified that question of the sanctuaries as the principle foreign policy issue in my own campaign and commentary. The American people are going to want answers: why can’t we find him? Why can’t we catch him? Why do we allow the sanctuaries to exist when the CIA states they are a growing threat to America and the world?

Obama, of course, was desperate to find some way of responding to Hillary Clinton's taunts. But desperate men sometimes tell the truth. There was Obama last night, cloyingly (same old Barry O) saying his speech had been in preparation "for a long time," and was not a response to Hillary's attack. But whatever his motives, Obama performed a useful service for the American people: he put the issue of Al Qaeda's sanctuaries on the table. Both parties will have to come up with answers. To date, Obama is the only candidate with an honest approach.

Game ball to Obama. ContrarianCommentary.com will not "take sanctuary" in opposition when Obama makes an intelligent attempt to challenge the presidential campaign process with the issue in 2008. Desperate or not, Obama has triggered a very, very sensitive issue and confronted both parties with a problem they would both prefer to avoid. The Sanctuary Gap. Which is why the extreme elements in both parties are attacking him. Barry O has pricked their balloon.

We will now see the first true test of the man as a leader.

TOMORROW: THE DEMOCRATS' DELUSION: PART TWO

------------------------------------------

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. He is America's most respected independent foreign policy analyst. Andy has been traveling to the Middle East and Asia since 1970. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com; AndyforUSSenator.com.