RMS CONSULTANTS Conservatives working to keep Conservative majority in Congress, and a Conservative President in the White House

HILLARY APPOINTMENT: THE AUDACITY OF BROKEN PROMISES

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on November 18, 2008

If Barack Obama appoints Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, it will send a cynical message to his supporters: that change is something they can still only hope for. Because if Obama relies on this unqualified Washington insider to fill one of the most important positions in his \'outsider\' administration, it will represent neither change nor hope, just more of the same. Instead of \"Yes, We Can,\" Obama will be touting loud and clear: \"No, we won\'t.\" A Clinton appointment would replace the audacity of hope with the audacity to shamelessly break campaign promises.

As a president without any experience in foreign affairs himself, Obama needs a seasoned partner at State. And Hillary Clinton is definitely not that person - neither in substance nor in style. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the entrenched Washington political establishment that Obama so effectively challenged and so thoroughly disdained. That\'s what makes her consideration so puzzling. But it\'s not just her old politics that should immediately disqualify her. With her out-of-control husband freelancing with foreign governments to raise money for his cronies, his foundation, and for speaking fees for himself, the potential for serious conflicts of interest are incalculable and dangerous.

We don\'t know precisely what the former president has been up to; it\'s all secret. For more than eight years, Bill Clinton has adamantly refused to disclose the fat-cat donors to his library and foundation. Because of a computer error in the Clinton Library, the New York Sun inadvertently learned that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, the U.A.E, Kuwait, and Morocco have chipped in. But what about other governments or businesses? Can we actually afford to have a Secretary of State whose husband secretly raises money from foreign governments who have strong interests in U.S. foreign policy decisions? That\'s what we\'d have with the Clintons. For Obama to choose Hillary would mean that he was ignoring the long overdue and strict ethical and professional standards that he claims will be imposed on all appointees. Or is Hillary going to have a separate standard of her own? A substantially lower one? Already, it appears that the Obama rule that \"if you leak, you\'re gone\" doesn\'t apply to Hillary. But does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint any other person to State whose spouse had publicly endorsed a controversial foreign leader for a U.N. position that the State Department opposed? That\'s just what Clinton did in the corrupt former Soviet state of Kazakhstan, where human rights violations are rampant.

Blame the GOP for America�s First Marxist President

Barack Hussein Obama has prevailed in the 2008 presidential election. Obama not only carried all the �blue� states that John Kerry won in 2004, he also flipped several �red� states, such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Virginia, delivering a crushing electoral defeat to John McCain. And the blame falls squarely on the GOP for allowing this Marxist to become president of the United States.

It has been interesting and amusing to read the numerous �post mortems� from conservative and liberal pundits alike. Yet not one of the post mortems has identified the real reason McCain got clobbered. It was not because of Sarah Palin, as many liberals claimed. Palin was the only thing that kept McCain in the game. It was not because middle America suddenly decided they like leftist solutions as opposed to conservative solutions. McCain offered few such solutions himself.

The reason Obama prevailed was because the GOP allowed a false narrative about Obama to stand � a narrative painting BHO as a moderate, reasonable, and competent legislator.

Barack Obama is warned to beware of a �huge threat� from al-Qaeda.

Barack Obama is warned to beware of a �huge threat� from al-Qaeda.

Barack Obama is being given ominous advice from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to brace himself for an early assault from terrorists.

General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, this week acknowledged that there were dangers during a presidential transition when new officials were coming in and getting accustomed to the challenges. But he added that no �real or artificial spike� in intercepted transmissions from terror suspects had been detected.

President Bush has repeatedly described the acute vulnerability of the US during a transition. The Bush Administration has been defined largely by the 9/11 attacks, which came within a year of his taking office.

His aides have pointed to al-Qaeda�s first assault on the World Trade Centre, which occurred little more than a month after Bill Clinton became President in 1993. There was an alleged attempt to bomb Glasgow airport in Gordon Brown�s first days in Downing Street and a London nightclub attack was narrowly thwarted.

Lord West of Spithead, the Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a �huge threat�, saying: �There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.�

Intelligence chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic have indicated that such warnings refer more to a general sense of foreboding than fear of an imminent or specific plan.

Referring to the attacks in 1993 and 2001, General Hayden told a Washington think-tank on Thursday night: �For some people two data points create a trend line. For others, there may be more hesitation to call it that.� He said that the chief danger comes from remote areas in Pakistan that border Afghanistan.

�Today virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it�s command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the Fata [Pakistan�s Federally Administered Tribal Areas].�

General Hayden said that al-Qaeda remained a �determined, adaptive enemy� operating �from its safe haven in Pakistan�. He added: �If there is a major attack on this country it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda.�

He said that the border region remained the base of al-Qaeda�s leadership, which had developed a more durable structure and a deep reserve of skilled operatives. �AlQaeda, operating from its safe haven in Pakistan�s tribal areas, remains the most clear and present danger to the safety of the United States,� General Hayden said.

The hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden �is very much at the top of CIA�s priority list,� he added. �Because of his iconic stature, his death or capture clearly would have a significant impact on the confidence of his followers.�

The CIA chief also suggested that the terror group was seeking to recruit Western-looking operatives who would not cause attention if they were standing in airport screening queues.

Hours after he spoke, a suspected US missile attack killed 12 people in Pakistan, including five foreigners. Such strikes are hugely controversial, with Islamabad claiming that they fuel anti-American extremist groups. But Mr Obama has been clear that he wants to pursue al-Qaeda aggressively across the Afghan border.

In Britain, security officials say that there is genuine concern that alQaeda will attempt a �spectacular� in the transition period, but suggest that it may be aimed more at Mr Bush than Mr Obama.

�As far as we know there is nothing from the intelligence world to indicate that anything has changed dramatically in recent months to put us on alert for an attack at the moment,� a source said. The present threat level is �severe�, which is the second-highest alert status. But a senior counterterrorism official suggested last month that this should be regarded as �the severe end of severe�. This would point to Britain facing a terrorist threat nearly as high as the period in the summer of 2005 when terrorists killed 52 people on London�s transport network on July 7 and attempted a similar attack on July 21.

Britain and the US are sharing all intelligence on suspected terrorist activity because of the high risk of a plot involving transatlantic flights. Al-Qaeda is understood still to be obsessed with mounting an attack using passenger airliners. There have also been warnings of al-Qaeda interest in developing a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) device. The US has anti-CBRN units on constant patrol in main cities.

Al-Qaeda is known to be experimenting with biological agents, particularly anthrax, which they acquire from dead animals and then create cultures. The key man involved in these experiments is Abou Kabbah al-Masri, who was engaged in the biological trials including tests on rabbits that were uncovered in Afghanistan when the Taleban were overrun after the US invasion in 2001.

James Lewis, a security expert with the Centre of Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that al-Qaeda may wish to provoke a reaction from the next US Administration designed to show the rest of the world that �America is still the evil crusader�.

Last month Joe Biden, the Vice-President-elect, told campaign donors: �Watch, we�re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle [of Mr Obama].�

Mr Lewis said that many Muslims were intrigued by Mr Obama�s arrival in the White House and �there may be political downsides� in attacking America too early. �It is hard to fathom the level of sophistication of their operatives and whether the chatter we intercept is dissent or intent. If they are gong to do something, they may wait until after the inauguration.

�At present there are policemen standing on policemen at possible targets. That won�t be the case three months into the new administration.�

Iran Returns to the Global Stage

Iran Returns to the Global Stage

George Friedman;Stratfor November 10, 2008;

After a three-month hiatus, Iran seems set to re-emerge near the top of the U.S. agenda. Last week, the Iranian government congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on his Nov. 4 electoral victory. This marks the first time since the Iranian Revolution that such greetings have been sent. While it seems trivial, the gesture is quite signi¬ficant. It represents a diplomatic way for the Iranians to announce that they regard Obama�s election as offering a potential breakthrough in 30 years of U.S. relations with Iran. At his press conference, Obama said he does not yet have a response to the congratulatory message, and reiterated that he opposes Iran�s nuclear program and its support for terrorism. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama after this, but without their usual passion.

[This is an excellent in-depth report.]

The Warming of U.S.-Iranian Relations

The warming of US-Iranian relations did not begin with Obama�s election; it began with the Russo-Georgian War. In the weeks and months prior to the August war, the United States had steadily increased tensions with Iran. This process proceeded along two tracks. On one track, the United States pressed its fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) and Germany to join Washington in impose¬ing additional sanctions on Iran. US Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns joined a July 19 meeting between EU foreign policy adviser Javier Solana and Iran¬ian national security chief Saeed Jalili, which was read as a thaw in the American position on Iran. The Iranian response¬se was ambiguous, which is a polite way of saying that Tehran wouldn�t commit to anything. The Iranians were given two weeks after the meeting to provide an answer or face new sanctions.

A second track consisted of intensified signals of potential US military action. Recall the carefully leaked report pub¬lished in The New York Times on June 20 regarding Israeli preparations for air strikes against Iran. According to US�not Israeli�sources, the Israeli air force rehearsed for an attack on Iran by carrying out a simulated attack over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean Sea involving more than 100 aircraft. At the same time, reports circulated about Israeli planes using US airfields in Iraq in preparation for an attack on Iran. The markets and oil prices�at a high in late July and early August�were twitching with reports of a potential blockade of Iranian ports, while the Internet was filled with lurid reports of a fleet of American and French ships on its way to carry out the blockade. The temperature in US-Iranian relations was surging, at least publicly. Then Russia and Georgia went to war, and Iran suddenly dropped off the US radar screen. Washington went quiet on the entire Iranian matter, and the Israelis declared that Iran was two to five years from developing a nuclear device (as opposed to a deliverable weapon), reducing the probability of an Israeli airstrike. From Washington�s point of view, the bottom fell out of US policy on Iran when the Russians and Georgians opened fire on each other.

An Unnecessary Defeat?

An Unnecessary Defeat?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Why did John McCain lose? Let�s start with those �headwinds� into which he was flying.

The president of the United States, the leader of his party, was at Nixon-Carter levels of approval, 25 percent, going into Election Day.

Sixty-two percent of the nation thought the economy was the No. 1 issue, and 93 percent thought the economy was bad. Two-thirds of the nation thought the war McCain championed was a mistake, and 80 percent to 90 percent thought the country was on the wrong course.

As a political athlete, measured by charisma and communications skills, McCain is not even in the same league with Barack Obama. He was outspent by vast sums, and his political organization was far inferior.

It is a wonder McCain was even competitive, dealt such a hand.

Yet, by Sept. 10, McCain, thanks to Sarah Palin, whose selection had proven a sensation, had come from eight points behind to take the lead, and Joe Biden was wailing that maybe Hillary would have been a better choice for Obama.

Conservatives Lost More Than An Election

That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He didn\'t. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a \"wasted\" vote, was it not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did. The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America\'s conservatives.

President Obama, for better or for worse.

By Ted Belman

It is well known that I did my best to make the case against Barack Hussein Obama. To no avail. Pres Elect Obama will be inaugurated on Jan 20th barring a dramatic outcome of the �eligibility� issue.

Republicans are debating whether they should cooperate with him or fight him all the way, like the Democrats fought Bush all the way. In fact the demonizing of Bush and his policies over at last six years paved the way for �change� from �four more years of Bush�.

Rahmbo

Rahmbo

IBD Editorial, November 6, 2008

Transition: Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to change the partisan tone in Washington. So why did he pick a take-no-prisoners partisan for his chief of staff.

Rahm Emanuel Obama\'s White House COS

The high-level White House selection of fellow Chicagoan Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the sharp-elbowed, foul-mouthed head of the Democrat caucus, doesn�t exactly augur well for the kind of noncynical air-freshening Obama voters had hoped for.

After Emanuel helped the Democrats win Congress in 2006, he told a gathering of celebrating staffers and campaign workers that Republicans �can go f*** themselves,� according to Chicago Tribune reporter Naftali Bendavid in her book, �The Thumpin�: How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution.�

Emanuel also has a favorite pejorative for GOP foes � �knucklef***s� � though he prides himself on being �an equal-opportunity pr*ck.� Indeed, he was overheard telling a fellow Democrat candidate whom he was helping win office:

�Don�t f*** it up or I�ll f*** you.�

And he once sent a dead fish in a mahogany box to a Democratic pollster with whom he quarreled while working as a fundraiser in the 1980s.

His ways are so crude that he was demoted by even the boorish Clinton White House for, among other things, disrespecting elder Cabinet members and leaking dirt on his enemies to the press. Clinton strategist Paul Begala, not the most pleasant soul himself, called Emanuel �a cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache.�

That Obama, the seeming paragon of class and dignity, would want to yoke himself to such a guttersnipe leaves many scratching their heads. His thuggish slash-and-burn style may get results, but for how long? Wasn�t it Obama who said he also wanted to change the culture of greed and corruption on Wall Street?

After leaving the scandal-plagued Clinton White House, Emanuel joined the board of Freddie Mac, which backed risky subprime home loans with the encouragement of Obama and other Democrats. He pocketed $231,655 in director�s fees in his last year there.

He also took a job as an investment banker in Chicago. After just over two years there, Emanuel walked away with a cool $18 million while working on merger deals that led to thousands of layoffs.

His firm also funded subprime loans, yet Emanuel now has the nerve to blame Wall Street �greed� and the �anything goes,� �right-wing� free-market ideology of Republicans for the financial crisis.

Then after his golden parachute, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley backed him in his bid for Congress. Emanuel was chief fundraiser for Daley during his 1989 campaign. Obama was also part of the Daley machine, which has long been associated with graft.

On policy, Emanuel, whose Hollywood agent brother represents Michael Moore, wants to make the Earned Income Tax Credit more user-friendly by consolidating it with all the other family tax credits and making them all refundable, while putting them on the IRS short form.

Ambitious. In your face. Aggressive. Combative. Ruthless. Pit bull. Rahmbo. All have been used to describe Emanuel. And now, chief of staff? Not an auspicious start for the candidate of hope and change.

Russian President Sharply Criticizes U.S. Plans for Missile Defense

JUST TESTING: OBAMA

Medvedev Threatens to Deploy Tactical Missiles Near Poland if U.S. Pursues Shield in Europe

Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, November 5, 2008; 5:27 PM

MOSCOW, Nov. 5 -- Sharply criticizing the United States while offering to rebuild relations with its new leader, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned in a nationally televised address today that he would deploy short-range missiles near Poland if the Obama administration pressed ahead with plans to build a missile defense shield in Europe.

Kremlin officials have threatened before to target Poland by moving tactical missiles into the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, most recently after Poland agreed in August to host a U.S. interceptor base. But Medvedev\'s threat \"to neutralize, when necessary,\" the American installation was the most explicit and public endorsement of the plan by a top Russian leader yet.

The warning appeared intended to signal the Kremlin\'s priorities to the new American president-elect and could serve as an early foreign policy test for Obama, who has said he supports missile defenses against Iran and North Korea but has also criticized the Bush administration for failing to consult with allies about the shield, exaggerating its capabilities and rushing deployment for political purposes.

Medvedev\'s remarks came in his first state of the nation address since taking office in May, a wide-ranging speech in which he held out little hope for democratic reforms and also proposed amending the Russian constitution to lengthen the presidential term to six years -- a move condemned by critics as part of a plan to allow his predecessor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, to return to office.

Medvedev emphasized that Russia remained ready to work with the United States if it abandoned its \"mistaken, egotistical and sometimes simply dangerous\" policies.

\"It is true that these relations are not going through the easiest period today,\" he said. \"But I would like to stress that we have no problems with the American people. We have no inherent anti-Americanism.\"

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Loves Senator Barack Obama

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Loves Senator Barack Obama

The Moscow Times » Issue 4016 » Comment Thursday, October 23, 2008

By Edward Lozansky

Obama\'s Change Must Start With His Advisers

Twelve days before the U.S. presidential election, all indicators are pointing to a victory by Senator Barack Obama. There is always a chance for last-minute surprises, but miracles are rare things. I think the main reason for Senator John McCain\'s likely defeat is that too many influential groups within his own Republican Party never regarded him as the best choice available.

I am not talking only about neocons. Even moderates, such as the widely admired former Secretary of State Colin Powell, have turned away from McCain. Powell said he was dismayed by the tenor of McCain\'s campaign and not thrilled by his choice of Governor Sarah Palin, and it is easy to understand him on these points.

If Obama wins the election, his presidency will be most welcome in Europe and the rest of the world and will definitely help improve relations with U.S. allies and Washington\'s image in general. But when it comes to U.S.�Russian relations, one should not expect any drastic changes for the better unless Obama overhauls his foreign policy team. The current lineup comprising official and self-proclaimed advisers on Russia is as bad as McCain\'s and in some cases even worse, starting with former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke.

Obama\'s running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, is not much better on Russia than Palin. Besides lobbying in the middle of a huge financial crisis for $1 billion for his good friend President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, Biden is known for blocking the lifting of the Jackson-Vanik amendment unless Moscow guarantees large purchases of U.S. chicken. This outdated obstacle to trade engenders resentment in Russia, blocks its admission to the World Trade Organization, and harms U.S.-Russian economic and diplomatic ties.

Before making any long-term projections, we will have to see who Obama\'s choices will be for secretary of state and national security adviser. There is a long list of knowledgeable and respected professionals who can do an excellent job. That list would include Powell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and current Undersecretary of State William Burns.

Making up such lists is quite an enjoyable occupation, but somehow I am not too sanguine about Obama\'s future selections. As for the present, he is clearly surrounded by people who may yet make the Kremlin feel nostalgic for the good old days of the Bush administration.

Edward Lozansky is president of the American University in Moscow.