We all have our memories of that horrible, devasting day - I certainly do. The shock, the horror, the anger, the Towers collapsing, the sirens, the F-16s circling over Manhattan, the smoke and smells I experienced 6 miles away, the quiet in the streets, the quiet in Central Park, the spontaneous candlelight gathering at Lincoln Center in the plaza, Giuliani's leadership that day, the way people came together.
Below are a few columns I read over the past couple of days that I think are worth sharing about Sept 11.
Ralph Peters -- Betraying Our Dead
UpsideTrader -- My Remembrance
Steve Serby -- ON SEPT. 11, 2001, COUGHLIN COACHED HIS SON TO SAFETY
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/betraying_our_dead_H6T95r1BTCnkC1UbEdUfsO
http://www.upsidetrader.com/2009/09/my-remeberence/
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10058196/A-DAY-TO-REMEMBER---ON-SEPT.-11,-2001,-COUGHLIN-COACHED-HIS-SON-TO-SAFETY-
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
ObamaCare: Plan, what Plan ? (aka Where's the Beef ?)
What Plan? [Yuval Levin]
The most peculiar feature of President Obama’s rhetoric in Wednesday night’s health care speech was his repeated use of terms like “my plan,” “this plan,” or “our plan.” It was not at all clear what plan he had in mind specifically — especially since a significant amount of what he outlined is not in the House or Senate bills at the moment. Was he suggesting the White House would produce its own plan?
A front-page story in today’s Washington Post clarifies the issue — or rather makes clear that there is no clarity. “One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit,” Post reporter Ceci Connolly writes.
The best summary of the White House approach in the story comes from the White House itself:
“His speech was very specific and, as promised, answered the big questions about how we should proceed on providing a secure and stable health system for all Americans,” White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. “Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.”
Very specific, but the details haven’t been worked out. Not a bad description of the speech, and the administration’s approach to the health-care debate. If you had made specific promises to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, leave everyone who is happy with his existing arrangements alone, and spend $900 billion without raising middle class taxes, cutting benefits to the elderly, or adding a dime to the deficit you would probably steer clear of details too.
Washington Post: Details Lacking on Obama Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091004365.html?hpid=topnews
The most peculiar feature of President Obama’s rhetoric in Wednesday night’s health care speech was his repeated use of terms like “my plan,” “this plan,” or “our plan.” It was not at all clear what plan he had in mind specifically — especially since a significant amount of what he outlined is not in the House or Senate bills at the moment. Was he suggesting the White House would produce its own plan?
A front-page story in today’s Washington Post clarifies the issue — or rather makes clear that there is no clarity. “One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit,” Post reporter Ceci Connolly writes.
The best summary of the White House approach in the story comes from the White House itself:
“His speech was very specific and, as promised, answered the big questions about how we should proceed on providing a secure and stable health system for all Americans,” White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. “Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.”
Very specific, but the details haven’t been worked out. Not a bad description of the speech, and the administration’s approach to the health-care debate. If you had made specific promises to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, leave everyone who is happy with his existing arrangements alone, and spend $900 billion without raising middle class taxes, cutting benefits to the elderly, or adding a dime to the deficit you would probably steer clear of details too.
Washington Post: Details Lacking on Obama Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091004365.html?hpid=topnews
Remembering Sept. 11, 2001 -- and some relevant commentary
The Obama White House -- It was a "crime" ?!?!?!?
From the 2009 presidential 9/11 proclamation:
We must apprehend all those who perpetrated these heinous crimes, seek justice for those who were killed, and defend against all threats to our national security.
Re: It's a Crime [Andy McCarthy]
No, Mr. President, these are acts of war. What's "heinous" is not to see that. And these acts of war, we have learned, happen when we treat such atrocities as if they were mere crimes. It emboldens our enemies to know that we won't defend ourselves vigorously. How shameful to pick today of all days to display for all to see — including our enemies — that we've forgotten that lesson. I shudder to think what it will take to relearn it.
The CIA: "War against Al-Qaeda"
Leon Panetta e-mails CIA staff:
The information the CIA gathers and the actions it takes, crucial as they are, will not by themselves defeat terrorists determined to strike again. Al-Qa’ida’s own vicious ideology, founded on the murder of innocent people, has proven to be a major weakness. But we cannot wait for popular disgust to isolate and overcome the extremists. We and our allies must continue to press the offensive, eroding their ability to plot and kill. It is difficult, hazardous work. But your skill, dedication, and valor make good on our responsibility not only to the memory of those who perished on September 11th, but to their families and to all Americans. We will never forget their sacrifice and we will never rest until we have brought those responsible for this tragedy to justice. The President has made clear that our mission is to disrupt, defeat, and destroy al-Qa’ida—and that’s exactly what we intend to do. It is a privilege for me to work with men and women worthy of so vital a mission. Thank you for serving so well in this fight—and for helping the United States guarantee that no life lost in this attack or battle shall be lost in vain. That is our pledge and our prayer on this September 11th.
Victor Davis Hanson: Our National 9-11 Schizoprhenia
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2ZWM2YzI5MzkxMjhjOTVhYWU1ZTZlZGM5ZGY0Y2U=
From the 2009 presidential 9/11 proclamation:
We must apprehend all those who perpetrated these heinous crimes, seek justice for those who were killed, and defend against all threats to our national security.
Re: It's a Crime [Andy McCarthy]
No, Mr. President, these are acts of war. What's "heinous" is not to see that. And these acts of war, we have learned, happen when we treat such atrocities as if they were mere crimes. It emboldens our enemies to know that we won't defend ourselves vigorously. How shameful to pick today of all days to display for all to see — including our enemies — that we've forgotten that lesson. I shudder to think what it will take to relearn it.
The CIA: "War against Al-Qaeda"
Leon Panetta e-mails CIA staff:
The information the CIA gathers and the actions it takes, crucial as they are, will not by themselves defeat terrorists determined to strike again. Al-Qa’ida’s own vicious ideology, founded on the murder of innocent people, has proven to be a major weakness. But we cannot wait for popular disgust to isolate and overcome the extremists. We and our allies must continue to press the offensive, eroding their ability to plot and kill. It is difficult, hazardous work. But your skill, dedication, and valor make good on our responsibility not only to the memory of those who perished on September 11th, but to their families and to all Americans. We will never forget their sacrifice and we will never rest until we have brought those responsible for this tragedy to justice. The President has made clear that our mission is to disrupt, defeat, and destroy al-Qa’ida—and that’s exactly what we intend to do. It is a privilege for me to work with men and women worthy of so vital a mission. Thank you for serving so well in this fight—and for helping the United States guarantee that no life lost in this attack or battle shall be lost in vain. That is our pledge and our prayer on this September 11th.
Victor Davis Hanson: Our National 9-11 Schizoprhenia
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2ZWM2YzI5MzkxMjhjOTVhYWU1ZTZlZGM5ZGY0Y2U=
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ObamaCare - well articulated, critical opinion pieces today
Rich Lowry: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dandy_speech_if_truth_doesn_matter_cGBDsDBdVH3RZ3nqnTNK6K
Charles Hurt:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/outsider_turns_to_dc_snake_oil_salesman_2bVTuygXdgN5d9GIjNgB4H
Michael Tanner:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_sizzle_no_substance_YCmYbWLLsBfaMNaXgSs0UP
Excerpt:
Charles Hurt (usually pro-Dem and Obama):
Outsider turns to DC snake-oil salesman
WASHINGTON -- Mark last night's address to Congress as the moment President Obama officially went completely Washington on us.
With universal health care, the centerpiece of his historic campaign, unraveling before him, Obama returned to those familiar waters of his greatest strength: that of an orator giving a great address that moves mountains.
The speech was said to be the most important speech of his young presidency.
Although Democrats run every game in town, their dreams of government health care -- and the massive infusion of new tax money that would flow with it into their hands -- looked to be dying.
This was the canvas for Obama's speech last night:
He needed to scrap the dumbest Democratic ideas and include new approaches that will actually lower health-care costs.
And, of course, he needed to sell this whole new program to an increasingly skeptical public.
But instead of offering anything new, Obama made a desperate stab at bipartisanship by offering tort reform.
We just lived through a month of angry protests against a rogue federal government and palpable rage against a Congress that blindly approves unread legislation.
While it may have pleased some Republicans who cheered tort reform last night, it is safe to say that not a single American will suddenly drop his or her opposition to government medicine just because Obama acknowledges that needless lawsuits drive up medical costs.
Only in Washington would tort reform serve as the grease with which to ram through death panels and government medicine.
That's because Washington is a phony stage where lobbyists are the only real actors. And in the biggest showdown between these sellouts, you have lobbyists for doctors and insurance companies on one side and lobbyists for trial lawyers on the other. In this sick world, if you make the lawyers bleed, you get the others on board.
And that's the cynical ploy Obama offered last night.
The man who won as a Washington outsider has officially become the ultimate insider.
No wonder people have quit buying what he's selling.
Charles Hurt:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/outsider_turns_to_dc_snake_oil_salesman_2bVTuygXdgN5d9GIjNgB4H
Michael Tanner:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_sizzle_no_substance_YCmYbWLLsBfaMNaXgSs0UP
Excerpt:
Charles Hurt (usually pro-Dem and Obama):
Outsider turns to DC snake-oil salesman
WASHINGTON -- Mark last night's address to Congress as the moment President Obama officially went completely Washington on us.
With universal health care, the centerpiece of his historic campaign, unraveling before him, Obama returned to those familiar waters of his greatest strength: that of an orator giving a great address that moves mountains.
The speech was said to be the most important speech of his young presidency.
Although Democrats run every game in town, their dreams of government health care -- and the massive infusion of new tax money that would flow with it into their hands -- looked to be dying.
This was the canvas for Obama's speech last night:
He needed to scrap the dumbest Democratic ideas and include new approaches that will actually lower health-care costs.
And, of course, he needed to sell this whole new program to an increasingly skeptical public.
But instead of offering anything new, Obama made a desperate stab at bipartisanship by offering tort reform.
We just lived through a month of angry protests against a rogue federal government and palpable rage against a Congress that blindly approves unread legislation.
While it may have pleased some Republicans who cheered tort reform last night, it is safe to say that not a single American will suddenly drop his or her opposition to government medicine just because Obama acknowledges that needless lawsuits drive up medical costs.
Only in Washington would tort reform serve as the grease with which to ram through death panels and government medicine.
That's because Washington is a phony stage where lobbyists are the only real actors. And in the biggest showdown between these sellouts, you have lobbyists for doctors and insurance companies on one side and lobbyists for trial lawyers on the other. In this sick world, if you make the lawyers bleed, you get the others on board.
And that's the cynical ploy Obama offered last night.
The man who won as a Washington outsider has officially become the ultimate insider.
No wonder people have quit buying what he's selling.
Obama's upcoming UN coming out party ...
It may look good for the cameras, but the reality likely will not be pretty:Obama at the UN:
Hazards Large and Small [Anne Bayefsky]
President Obama’s UN debut is fast approaching. But as he looks forward to his makeover as global conciliator and potentate, all the signs point to a train wreck that has the potential of making health-care reform look easy.
Two problems are putting a wrench in his plans: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan president Col. Moammar Qaddafi. Both are coming to the UN’s New York headquarters in less than two weeks with to-do lists that don’t include improving Obama’s poll numbers.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad called the president’s bluff. In mid-summer Obama decided that when the UN met in September, he would become the first American president to preside over a session of the Security Council (the council’s presidency rotates among its members, and this month is the United States’s turn). Before Obama’s move, the council’s agenda items for September had included “nuclear non-proliferation — Iran” and “nuclear non-proliferation — North Korea.” But upon inviting heads of state and government to join him, Obama chose a different agenda for his get-together, described by Amb. Susan Rice as “focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.” The Iranian president saw his opportunity, and yesterday he announced that Iran is ready for talks about “worldwide nuclear non-proliferation” and “global nuclear disarmament.”
Obama undoubtedly added “disarmament” to his council moment to impress a non-American audience. He didn’t care that in UN circles it would be used to change the subject from preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to disarming Israel and the United States. Fine and dandy with Ahmadinejad.
Furthermore, on Monday the Iranian president said he has no intention of halting uranium enrichment or negotiating over his country’s nuclear “rights.” With Obama running away from naming specific troublesome countries — at a summit of world leaders, at the Security Council, in the middle of New York City — why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad treat Americans as airheads who prefer photo ops too: “Nuclear proliferation — who, me?”
Meanwhile, the Qaddafi problem is getting more “sensitive,” as Ambassador Rice has so delicately put it. Obama’s idea for a summit meeting, which seemed like a harmless international diversionary tactic in the midst of a domestic mess, has the potential to become an image maker’s worst nightmare. Libya is a member of the Security Council, and Qaddafi is looking for a hug (literally). So now Obama’s people are worrying about how to avoid him, or at least how to keep the cameras away when Obama embraces a man whom Americans understand to be a human-rights low-life extraordinaire. The irony is that it was Obama himself who issued Qaddafi the invitation to the council summit.
The president may also run into the colonel at the General Assembly podium the day before. On September 23 Obama will assume the dais and wax eloquent about the glories of the United Nations. The fantasy won’t last long, though. Libya is the president of this year’s General Assembly, resulting in a speaker order that makes Obama into Qaddafi’s warm-up act.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices
Hazards Large and Small [Anne Bayefsky]
President Obama’s UN debut is fast approaching. But as he looks forward to his makeover as global conciliator and potentate, all the signs point to a train wreck that has the potential of making health-care reform look easy.
Two problems are putting a wrench in his plans: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan president Col. Moammar Qaddafi. Both are coming to the UN’s New York headquarters in less than two weeks with to-do lists that don’t include improving Obama’s poll numbers.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad called the president’s bluff. In mid-summer Obama decided that when the UN met in September, he would become the first American president to preside over a session of the Security Council (the council’s presidency rotates among its members, and this month is the United States’s turn). Before Obama’s move, the council’s agenda items for September had included “nuclear non-proliferation — Iran” and “nuclear non-proliferation — North Korea.” But upon inviting heads of state and government to join him, Obama chose a different agenda for his get-together, described by Amb. Susan Rice as “focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.” The Iranian president saw his opportunity, and yesterday he announced that Iran is ready for talks about “worldwide nuclear non-proliferation” and “global nuclear disarmament.”
Obama undoubtedly added “disarmament” to his council moment to impress a non-American audience. He didn’t care that in UN circles it would be used to change the subject from preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to disarming Israel and the United States. Fine and dandy with Ahmadinejad.
Furthermore, on Monday the Iranian president said he has no intention of halting uranium enrichment or negotiating over his country’s nuclear “rights.” With Obama running away from naming specific troublesome countries — at a summit of world leaders, at the Security Council, in the middle of New York City — why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad treat Americans as airheads who prefer photo ops too: “Nuclear proliferation — who, me?”
Meanwhile, the Qaddafi problem is getting more “sensitive,” as Ambassador Rice has so delicately put it. Obama’s idea for a summit meeting, which seemed like a harmless international diversionary tactic in the midst of a domestic mess, has the potential to become an image maker’s worst nightmare. Libya is a member of the Security Council, and Qaddafi is looking for a hug (literally). So now Obama’s people are worrying about how to avoid him, or at least how to keep the cameras away when Obama embraces a man whom Americans understand to be a human-rights low-life extraordinaire. The irony is that it was Obama himself who issued Qaddafi the invitation to the council summit.
The president may also run into the colonel at the General Assembly podium the day before. On September 23 Obama will assume the dais and wax eloquent about the glories of the United Nations. The fantasy won’t last long, though. Libya is the president of this year’s General Assembly, resulting in a speaker order that makes Obama into Qaddafi’s warm-up act.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices
ObamaCare update ... aftermath of Congressional speech
So, a Congressman called O a liar. That's nothing compared to what they did to GWB.
Obama's Lies Matter, Too [Jonah Goldberg]
Matt Welch:
“It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you’d think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.”
Ramesh's extended dissection of the president's dishonesty can be found here.
Obama Poisoning the Well [Jonah Goldberg]
From Outside the Beltway:
The president was deliberately poisoning the well, claiming that his opponents are dishonorable and ill-intentioned. And, as AllahPundit and Mark Tapscott point out, the bill will of course cover illegal aliens. Even the Congressional Research Service says so.
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.Indeed, as an Obama official interviewed on NPR this morning admits, the administration has moved the ball in the other direction, removing existing restrictions requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to get various federal benefits on the grounds that they were too onerous and causing those legitimately eligible to give up or be denied. That may well be the right thing to do (I don’t know the specifics well enough to render definitive judgment) but it nonetheless vitiates the claim that there’s some magic wall to prevent the twelve million-odd illegal aliens from gaining access.Beyond that, simple logic tells you that illegal aliens will be covered under any system of universal coverage. Aside from the plain meaning of the word universal, we have laws in this country requiring unquestioned treatment at emergency rooms for anyone who shows up. The Supreme Court ruled more than a quarter century ago in Pyler v. Doe that the Equal Protection Clause requires that children of known illegal aliens be given free elementary and secondary education in public schools. It’s hard to justify a rationale that requires paying to educate children while denying them health care.
On to the Next Speech [Mark Steyn]
For what it's worth, I didn't think the president helped himself last night. He reminded me of the smart kid who feels he doesn't need to prepare. The speech was very inconsistent in tone, from don't-frighten-the-horses utilitarianism to the grandiosity he finds so hard to resist (the this-is-the-moment stuff*) to the petulant imputations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him (which is at least as unbecoming as what that no-name Congressman did).
I don't think he was served by the setting and the unearned ovations that come with it: There's a reason why joint sessions have mostly been reserved for foreign policy. The ritual suits affairs of state. But health care is an affair of you and your body — that's why his numbers tanked over August, as people realized it wasn't just about helping "the uninsured" but about potentially dramatic changes to their own health care. The parliamentary frippery subliminally underlines what increasing numbers of voters don't like about it — that your hip replacement is now in the care of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
So I don't think it'll help. On the other hand, how much help does he need? If I were Obama, I'd be planning on ramming something — anything — through and relying on my charisma, the media, and GOP clubfootedness to see me over the rough patch. Not saying that'll work, but, given the extraordinary complacency of the speech, evidently the president and his courtiers still feel they've got it all over anybody else.
Obama's Lies Matter, Too [Jonah Goldberg]
Matt Welch:
“It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you’d think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.”
Ramesh's extended dissection of the president's dishonesty can be found here.
Obama Poisoning the Well [Jonah Goldberg]
From Outside the Beltway:
The president was deliberately poisoning the well, claiming that his opponents are dishonorable and ill-intentioned. And, as AllahPundit and Mark Tapscott point out, the bill will of course cover illegal aliens. Even the Congressional Research Service says so.
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.Indeed, as an Obama official interviewed on NPR this morning admits, the administration has moved the ball in the other direction, removing existing restrictions requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to get various federal benefits on the grounds that they were too onerous and causing those legitimately eligible to give up or be denied. That may well be the right thing to do (I don’t know the specifics well enough to render definitive judgment) but it nonetheless vitiates the claim that there’s some magic wall to prevent the twelve million-odd illegal aliens from gaining access.Beyond that, simple logic tells you that illegal aliens will be covered under any system of universal coverage. Aside from the plain meaning of the word universal, we have laws in this country requiring unquestioned treatment at emergency rooms for anyone who shows up. The Supreme Court ruled more than a quarter century ago in Pyler v. Doe that the Equal Protection Clause requires that children of known illegal aliens be given free elementary and secondary education in public schools. It’s hard to justify a rationale that requires paying to educate children while denying them health care.
On to the Next Speech [Mark Steyn]
For what it's worth, I didn't think the president helped himself last night. He reminded me of the smart kid who feels he doesn't need to prepare. The speech was very inconsistent in tone, from don't-frighten-the-horses utilitarianism to the grandiosity he finds so hard to resist (the this-is-the-moment stuff*) to the petulant imputations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him (which is at least as unbecoming as what that no-name Congressman did).
I don't think he was served by the setting and the unearned ovations that come with it: There's a reason why joint sessions have mostly been reserved for foreign policy. The ritual suits affairs of state. But health care is an affair of you and your body — that's why his numbers tanked over August, as people realized it wasn't just about helping "the uninsured" but about potentially dramatic changes to their own health care. The parliamentary frippery subliminally underlines what increasing numbers of voters don't like about it — that your hip replacement is now in the care of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
So I don't think it'll help. On the other hand, how much help does he need? If I were Obama, I'd be planning on ramming something — anything — through and relying on my charisma, the media, and GOP clubfootedness to see me over the rough patch. Not saying that'll work, but, given the extraordinary complacency of the speech, evidently the president and his courtiers still feel they've got it all over anybody else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
