3-11-2009

Mark Steyn: I wonder what Mr. and Mrs. America will make of it tomorrow morning, reading for the very first time how the “Outspoken Former Ambassador” (as the AP’s headline has it) was scuttled by a controversy their newspaper saw fit not to utter a word about.

Ed Lasky: Will any of the critics that lambasted George Bush during his terms in office for manipulating intelligence raise an inquiry why our Director of National Intelligence seemingly manipulated intelligence (or certainly did not seek out intelligence — a fact that should have been clear in his pick of Freeman) before a Senate Committee?

Michael Yon: Whereas the Bush-war ended in a new if messy democracy, this year we could see an Obama-war begin; the new President has sent a clear signal that we intend to mostly abandon Iraq during this crucial transition period. Today, the progress is obvious. But if Iraq descends back into chaos, the Obama-war, a newborn war, will not be a result of U.S. aggression, but of limp leadership intent on fulfilling campaign promises that were misinformed to begin with.

Andrew Grove: I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening….the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first.

TigerHawk: If the CEOs of banks that take federal money, including those who took federal money only after Hank Paulsen essentially ordered them, have their salary capped at $500,000, under what principle do we allow universities that request federal funding to pay their own presidents much more money? Is there a rational basis for the distinction, or is it simply that the Democrats do not want to go after one of their most important constituents?

Filed under: Chip by Chip