Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, September 20,
2006
1. Tehran Lunatic Spreads His Vile
Poison in NYC - New York Post
In a showdown of ideologies at the United Nations yesterday, Iran's hard-line
leader took to the podium eight hours after President Bush - and went on a
nutty tirade, blaming the United States for the world's problems and arguing
that Israel has no right to exist.
2. Big
tax haul signals strong profits - Reuters
Record high U.S. corporate tax receipts in the third quarter signal
stronger-than-expected corporate profits for the period and the likelihood
of a smaller budget deficit than forecast for 2006 and possibly 2007.
3. Thai
leader deposed in military coup - Washington Times
Troops from Thailand's U.S.-trained military seized power in a bloodless coup
yesterday, ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra while he was in New
York. The Military Reform Council said its rule would be temporary and that
power would soon be returned to civilians.
4. Speaking Up for
America - New York Sun Op-ed
Whatever the American people are, they are not dumb. Yesterday, they watched
President Bush state in a straightforward way that what America wants for
itself and the other people of the world is peace, and they are going to
appreciate someone willing to put in a good word at the United Nations for
the country they love.
5. Wake up call for GOP
or snooze alarm for Dems - The Hill With the Gallup Poll
showing a spike in Bush's approval ratings and a narrowing of the gap
between Democrats and Republicans in party congressional preferences, a
looming question is how enduring the change is. Will it last until November?
1. Tehran Lunatic Spreads His Vile Poison
in NYC - New York Post
By CLEMENTE LISI and ANDY SOLTIS
September 20, 2006 -- In a showdown of ideologies at the United Nations
yesterday, Iran's hard-line leader took to the podium eight hours after
President Bush - and went on a nutty tirade, blaming the United States for
the world's problems and arguing that Israel has no right to exist.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also used his long-awaited moment on the world stage to
claim Third World nations should be given more power on the 15-nation U.N.
Security Council, which he alleged was a rubber-stamp for U.S. and Israeli
"aggression and occupation."
U.S. and Israeli delegates snubbed the speech by leaving the General
Assembly even before he began his 32-minute rant.
Even as he faces worldwide condemnation for pursuing nuclear weapons,
Ahmadinejad claimed it was countries that currently have nuclear weapons -
such as the United States - that pose real danger to other nations.
Ahmadinejad called his country's atomic program "transparent" and said it
was "under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors" - a reference to the U.N.
nuclear watchdog.
He gave no indication of any willingness to comply with the United Nations'
call to halt uranium enrichment.
Last night, foreign-policy leaders from the United States, Russia, China,
Great Britain, Germany and France agreed to give European Union
foreign-policy chief Javier Solana more time to explore a possible deal with
Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani, although no deadline was set.
The ministers reaffirmed their support for sanctions if Tehran did not
suspend its most sensitive nuclear work, Nicholas Burns, the U.S.
undersecretary of state, told reporters.
Hours earlier, Bush had called on Iran to "abandon its nuclear-weapons
ambitions."
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad repeated his claim that the World War II Allies
created a Jewish state "at the expense of millions of rightful" occupants -
a reference to Palestinians.
"Can any logic or law justify this tragedy?" Ahmadinejad asked.
He then turned to another favorite subject when he voiced doubts that the
Holocaust happened, saying the arguments used for the creation of Israel
"are so weak" that its supporters "want to silence" the doubters.
Without ever naming the United States, Ahmadinejad said the Security Council
was "practically incapacitated by some powers to even call a cease-fire."
He didn't mention Israel by name - but repeatedly referred to it as "the
occupiers" and "the Zionist regime."
Ahmadinejad also charged that in Iraq, "the occupiers are incapable of
establishing security" - even making the wacky claim that the United States
and new Iraqi government had freed captured terrorists.
He said America wants instability in Iraq because it "serves as the pretext"
for continued occupation.
Again and again, he returned to the theme that the Security Council had
failed to stop "tragedies," like this past summer's Lebanese war.
Earlier in the day, speaking from the same podium, Bush - who never crossed
paths with the Iranian leader yesterday - charged that Mideast hard-liners
like Ahmadinejad are slandering the United States with "propaganda and
conspiracy theories" that claim America is waging war with Muslims.
"My country desires peace," Bush told the General Assembly. "Extremists in
your midst spread propaganda, claiming that the West is engaged in a war
against Islam."
Bush added, "This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and
justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."
Bush also singled out Iran and Syria as sponsors of terrorism - throwing
down the gauntlet before Ahmadinejad got his own chance to address the
delegates.
Bush directed an appeal to Ahmadinejad's citizens, urging them to "determine
your own future."
"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to
deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and
fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," Bush said.
He never mentioned Ahmadinejad by name.
Ahmadinejad was not present during Bush's speech, when the president said
Iran "must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions."
For months, Ahmadinejad has been trying to debate Bush, directly or
indirectly - and getting a cold shoulder in return.
In May, he wrote a bizarre letter to Bush in which he said the world was
being consumed with "ever-increasing global hatred of the American
government."
The Bush administration called the letter a failed bid to change the subject
of Iran's drive toward nuclear weapons. But Ahmadinejad complained again
yesterday that Bush never wrote back.
Last month, Ahmadinejad upped the ante, calling on Bush to join him in a
live, televised debate to discuss world peace. The White House called that
another "diversion."
The two leaders avoided one another while separate groups of protesters took
to the streets outside U.N. headquarters.
Several hundred of them, chanting, "Ahmadinejad is a terrorist," lined up
near Dag Hammarskjold Plaza in Midtown. A few blocks away, others denounced
Bush and the war in Iraq.
At midday, Ahmadinejad, a strict Muslim, did not attend a farewell luncheon
for Kofi Annan, where Bush lavishly praised the U.N. secretary-general.
"We need to toast the fact that you're a hard worker. For those of you
who've had the honor of taking a phone call from Kofi Annan, you know that
he's not always calling from the same address," Bush said, to laughter.
After the luncheon Bush ran into his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who was
attending an AIDS funding conference elsewhere at the United Nations.
Bush put his arm around Clinton's shoulders and pulled Iraqi President Jalal
Talibani over for a three-way chat.
"It was unplanned - unexpected. When you see another president standing
nearby, the proper thing to do is to go over and say hi," said White House
spokesman Tony Snow.
He called it a brief, but "very nice, very pleasant conversation."
Experts said Bush's carefully crafted speech to the delegates left little
doubt the United States would be alone in its condemnation of Ahmadinejad.
"By not calling on the Security Council to act, the president has accepted
that there will be no Security Council action," said former Bush aide David
Frum, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of
the book "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror."
Ted Carpenter, a foreign-policy and defense expert at the libertarian Cato
Institute, said Bush's tough-talk made clear that a U.S. "military option
remains very much on the table."
Carpenter said Bush's highly public unveiling of the go-it-alone approach is
the latest shift in the White House's constantly evolving tactics for
dealing with the increasingly defiant Ahmadinejad.
If the United States is, in fact, left alone in its approach to solving the
Iranian nuclear crisis, Carpenter suggested a diplomatic olive branch: Offer
to restore normal diplomatic relations with Iran in exchange for a peek at
its nuclear program.
"At a minimum, it would smoke out the Iranian regime. Right now, we're
speculating about Tehran's goals and motives," he said.
"If they turned down the grand bargain, then we would know that the regime
is unalterably determined to become a nuclear-weapons state."
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler and
poked fun at his name.
"I call him Ahmad-in-a-head. I think he's a Hitler type of person,"
Voinovich said. "He's made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He has
made it clear that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He's a, he's a - we
all know what he is!" With Post Wire Services
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Record high U.S. corporate tax receipts in the third
quarter signal stronger-than-expected corporate profits for the period and
the likelihood of a smaller budget deficit than forecast for 2006 and
possibly 2007, analysts said on Monday.
Corporate tax receipts reached $71.8 billion in the third quarter, making
Friday's gross receipts of $85.8 billion the largest in a single day in
history, the Treasury Department said on Monday.
Tax receipts for the year are running 11.7 percent higher than last year,
Treasury Undersecretary Randal Quarles said in a statement. Even so,
analysts expected corporate tax receipts for the quarter to be in line with
or lower than the $63 billion collected in September 2005 because of a
one-time bump from a temporary repatriation of foreign earnings last year.
"In fact, we seem to have beat it by something on the order of 10 percent,"
said Lou Crandall, chief economist with Wrightson-ICAP in Jersey City, New
Jersey.
"That means, significantly larger revenues in general, and it's something
that carries forward to a certain extent to next quarter," he added.
A strong quarter for businesses suggests the federal budget deficit for
fiscal 2006, which ends September 30, is likely in line with or lower than
the $260 billion forecast by the Congressional Budget Office, analysts said.
The White House Office of Management and Budget projects a $296 billion
budget gap for fiscal 2006.
"You're beating the OMB numbers -- a slam dunk," said Ed McKelvey, senior
economist at Goldman Sachs. "And the CBO number looks like it's a pretty
good guess," he said.
September's strong corporate performance may also signal that despite
expectations of subpar economic growth ahead analysts may trim deficit
forecasts for next year as well, Crandall said.
"The rally in profits isn't over," he said.
The Congressional Budget Office expects a deficit of $286 billion in fiscal
2007, which begins October 1. Corporate tax receipts from the third quarter
may lower expectations for the next fiscal year to between $200 billion and
$250 billion, Crandall said.
Strong corporate profits and a lower-than-projected budget deficit this year
could help Republicans dispel voter doubts about President George W. Bush's
handling of the economy as they seek to retain control of Congress in
November's congressional elections approach.
Poll respondents identify the economy as second only to the war in Iraq, and
on par with terrorism, among their leading concerns.
3. Thai leader deposed in military
coup - Washington Times
By Richard Ehrlich
Published September 20, 2006
BANGKOK -- Troops from Thailand's U.S.-trained military seized power in a
bloodless coup yesterday, ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra while he
was in New York to address the U.N. General Assembly and proclaiming their
loyalty to the king.
With more than a dozen tanks ringing the prime minister's office, a
self-appointed Military Reform Council took to the airwaves to declare a
state of martial law and the suspension of the constitution.
The broadcast did not identify the members of the council, but army
spokesman Col. Akara Chitroj told reporters that army commander Gen. Sonthi
Boonyaratkalin would serve as acting prime minister.
Deputy Prime Minister Chitchai Wannasathit and Defense Minister Thammarak
Isaragura na Ayuthaya -- both Thaksin loyalists -- were reported to have
been arrested.
Thailand did not seem in immediate danger of ending its close military
alliance with the United States, or Bangkok's robust capitalist policies.
"We look to the Thai people to resolve their political differences in a
peaceful manner and in accordance with principles of democracy and rule of
law," said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for President Bush's National
Security Council.
The coup follows months of political turmoil sparked by charges of
corruption on the part of Mr. Thaksin, a wealthy businessman, and came on
the eve of a mass rally to demand his resignation.
The Military Reform Council said its rule would be temporary and that power
would soon be returned to civilians.
It also declared that it was acting in defense of the nation's revered King
Bhumibol Adulyadej, who holds enormous moral authority in Thailand and on
June 9 marked the 60th anniversary of his coronation. Troops patrolling on a
drizzly evening tied yellow ribbons to their weapons in a sign of loyalty to
the monarch, who is understood to be personally close to Gen. Sonthi.
"There has been social division like never before," said the council's
televised statement. "Each side has been trying to conquer another with all
possible means, and the situation tends to intensify with growing doubts on
the administration, amid widespread reported corruption."
"The revolutionary body thus needs to seize power. We have no intention to
rule, but to return the power to the people as soon as possible, to preserve
peace, and honor the king who is the most revered to all Thais."
Crucially the king, born in Cambridge, Mass., did not immediately speak out
for or against the coup. Many Thais will wait for his blessing, or
criticism, before deciding how to react to the military takeover.
Thailand has suffered more than a dozen coups and coup attempts since the
1930s. Some coups initially appeared to be successful, but crumbled when the
king declined to support the new regime.
In the 1970s, and in 1992, military coup leaders remained in power until
popular uprisings forced them to cede power.
As news of the coup first broke, Mr. Thaksin issued a statement from New
York warning against "illegal" military movements and announcing a "serious
emergency law." The prime minister canceled his scheduled address to the
U.N. General Assembly last night.
The prime minister has still to decide whether to return to Thailand from
New York after the overnight military coup, his spokesman said.
"Prime Minister Thaksin is now in New York and he has not yet made up his
mind where he will go. But he will have to make a decision soon," government
spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said.
The billionaire politician still has an official plane at his disposal. He
has a private residence in London, where one of his daughters is studying.
Mr. Thaksin's wife, Potjaman, reportedly left Bangkok for Singapore late
yesterday as the coup was announced.
A senior Thai official in New York said earlier that Mr. Thaksin planned to
leave the United States overnight but that his destination was unknown.
Mr. Thaksin's woes began in February when his family sold its stake in its
Shin Corp. telecommunications empire to Singapore's government-owned Temasek
Holdings investment group for $1.9 billion.
The Thaksin family did not pay taxes on the deal, insisting it was done
offshore and therefore exempt.
Huge crowds took to the streets in protest, prompting Mr. Thaksin to hold a
snap election in April to reaffirm his mandate. His solid victory in that
poll was thrown out by the courts because of irregularities.
The election was to have been repeated in mid-November, with Mr. Thaksin
still favored to be re-elected.
Though despised by much of Bangkok's wealthy elite and middle class,
including press, business leaders, students, intellectuals and others, the
prime minister was very popular in the countryside where most people live,
because of his cheap health care, debt cancellations, and other government
give-aways that benefited the poor.
President Bush's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations was an
eloquent articulation of a simple point. "My country," he said, "desires
peace." He went on at some length, seeking to encourage and inspirit those
in other countries who are looking for America to stand fast in the struggle
against oppression or who have already taken great risks for reform. He
spoke to the people of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, Darfur, to the
Palestinian Arabs, to the Syrians. But what he did most of all is state in a
straightforward way that, despite what America's enemies are insisting, what
America wants for itself and the other people of the world is peace.
The thing that struck us is why so few other American politicians are saying
this. No Democrat seems prepared to assert this simple proposition. Senator
Kerry doesn't speak up for America; he speaks up for those who are
complaining about America. Senator Clinton has refrained from attacking Mr.
Bush on foreign policy and the war. But when it comes to a lively defense of
America's intentions in this war, the cat has her tongue. Senator Schumer's,
too. Vice President Gore spends his days plumping for the environment.
President Clinton, the most unifying figure on the Democratic side, is
building his international forum around the gliterrati of Hollywood and the
fashion world.
Only Mr. Bush seems prepared to wade into this fray with a good word for
America's intentions in a war that America didn't start and that Congress
has repeatedly, despite all the controversy, underwritten. He spoke
yesterday of "a more hopeful world . . . a world beyond terror ... where the
voices of moderation are empowered . . ." Speaking directly to the people of
the Middle East, he said from the podium at Turtle Bay: "Extremists in your
midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against
Islam. This propaganda is false, and its purpose is to confuse you." What is
it about this truth that the opposition political figures in America have a
hard time seconding? Why are they not rushing to beat Mr. Bush to the point?
It's not a question of smart speechwriting, though Mr. Bush certainly has
that. What one hears from those who have helped craft speeches for Mr. Bush
is that this particular president - like, incidentally, Reagan before him -
is himself an extraordinary editor. He knows what he's doing. Listening to
him, we couldn't help but wonder whether when he gets back home after a long
day like yesterday he doesn't sit down and ask himself how he got so lucky -
to emerge as the only politician standing up for America. One never knows
how an election is going to come out, but it's not surprising that he's
surging in the latest polls (USAToday Gallup has his approval rating
suddenly up to 44%). Our conviction has long been that whatever the American
people are, they are not dumb. They, in their millions, are watching this
situation, and they are going to appreciate someone willing to put in a good
word at the United Nations for the country they love.
Frontlash
One of the little-noticed things that Mr. Bush did at the United Nations
yesterday was to convene a meeting with the leaders of 23 established and
emerging democracies to hear from the directors of non-governmental
organizations from six countries where democracy is under attack. The
backsliders are Russia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Also present was a former American deputy envoy at the U.N., Carl Gershman,
who heads America's own National Endowment for Democracy, which grew out of
the visionary leadership of President Reagan and Lane Kirkland of the
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations. The NGO
leaders warned of a new backlash against civil society and international
democracy assistance , a backlash fed by alarm over the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine. Mr. Bush, very much in a leadership role in this behind-the-scenes
group, nursed the idea of creating a common voice from the democracies aimed
at reversing the backlash. President Karzai of Afghanistan voiced lively
support, as did others. Someday people will be calling it a frontlash. Lane
Kirkland would have been proud.
5. Wake up call for GOP or snooze alarm
for Dems - The Hill
With the Gallup Poll showing a spike in Bush's approval ratings and a
narrowing of the gap between Democrats and Republicans in party
congressional preferences, a looming question is how enduring the change is.
Will it last until November?
Presidential-support scores and party ballot preferences are notoriously
fickle, often swinging one way or another in a matter of weeks. I recall
vividly how Clinton felt that his ratings had improved after his
orchestration of a Mideast peace accord between Jordan and Israel one week
before the 1994 elections. He returned home buoyed by the uptick and
determined to campaign for deserving Democrats. But his campaigning
backfired and made the newly minted statesman seem like a party politician
and his ratings dropped again, paving the way for the '94 debacle for the
Democrats.
The growth in Republican fortunes is not based on any real change in either
the economy or the war on terror. Very little is different in September than
in June or July. The growth in Bush's ratings and in Republican chances is
entirely due to a change in voter perceptions brought about by the
confluence of three events:
1. The thwarting of a serious al Qaeda plan to blow up airplanes over the
Atlantic.
2. The renewed national debate on imprisonment and interrogation of terror
suspects.
3. The anniversary of Sept.11, the Bush speech on that day, and the ABC-TV
docudrama exposing the failure of Clinton's efforts to get bin Laden.
These three events have not only served to rivet public attention on the war
on terror, but they have also severed the domestic effort to protect our
homeland security from the War in Iraq. It is no longer necessary to approve
of the war in order to want to keep Republicans in power to avoid dilution
of our anti-terror initiatives.
The problem for the Republicans is that the voters of this country badly
want the Democrats to win when it comes to almost every issue other than
domestic terror. Despite the good economy, they trust Democrats more on
jobs. The deficit is shrinking, but they still trust Democrats more on the
budget. And on issues like Social Security, Medicare, drug costs, education,
climate change, and the environment, they trust Democrats more and always
have.
Only on immigration do the Republicans battle successfully, but their
ability to cite their efforts is fatally undermined by their failure to get
together and pass immigration reform when they controlled both houses and
the White House.
So, with the underlying situation not much changed, it is probable that the
mood will pass and that the Democrats will resume their domination of the
2006 election.
The problem for the Democrats is that we really do face a huge terrorist
threat and there really is a key difference between the parties in how they
would handle it. A Democratic victory giving them control of both houses
would, in fact, undermine our efforts to keep America safe. The need for the
Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping and the need to resist Democratic attempts
to undermine them is never more apparent than in the 9/11 Commission report
as highlighted in the ABC mini-series.
Americans have been far too cavalier in dismissing the chances of another
major terror strike, and the Democrats have gone much too far out on a limb
in opposing Bush's efforts to interrogate terror suspects and to wiretap
international phone calls. (By the way, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) may be in
the process of killing his chances for the GOP nomination and Sen. Lindsay
Graham (R-S.C.) may be in midst of destroying his reelection chances over
the same issue). The reality of these threats may well be clearer as the
election approaches, kindled by the fifth anniversary reminders of 9/11.
So, did Americans wake up to the need to keep Republicans in office to
defend against terror? Or was it just a snooze alarm and will they go back
to sleep? The polls in the next weeks will tell the story.
Morris and McGann, husband and wife, have written several books together,
including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Living History by Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).