The Sunday Times (UK) reported yesterday, based on Taliban sources, that the Iranians are paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers. (The Times's account is behind a pay wall, but summaries of the story can be found elsewhere in the press.) We learn that the going rate is $1,000 per dead American and $6,000 for each American vehicle that is destroyed. 

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of Iran paying out rewards for dead Americans. When WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of U.S. military documents earlier this year, a number of intelligence reports pointing to collusion between Iran and the Taliban (as well as al Qaeda) came to light.

One of the WikiLeaks documents was an ISAF report dated February 19, 2005. The report noted that a group of Taliban commanders consisting of “eight main leaders, all of whom travel into [Afghanistan] to recruit soldiers” was expected to orchestrate attacks against U.S. forces in the Helmand and Uruzgan provinces. “This Joint Group currently resides in Iran,” the document notes, and the “Iranian government has offered each member of the group 100,000 Rupees ($1,740) for any [Afghan] soldier killed and 200,000 Rupees ($3,481) for any [Government of Afghanistan] official.”

So Iran was, according to an ISAF intelligence report, paying bounties for dead Americans in 2005. And in 2010 nothing has changed – except the price ($1,740 vs. $1,000). Throughout much of this time, we’ve heard over and over again that Iran could never, ever work with the Taliban because the two hate each other and theological differences preclude collusion. That has never been true. Their hatred of America trumps their animosity for each other.

“We don’t care who we get money from,” a source described as a “Taliban treasurer” told the Times. The Taliban’s relationship with Iran is “marriage of convenience,” this same source said, and “Iran will never stop funding us because Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad.”

(Interestingly, this Taliban treasurer picks up proceeds from Iran via an Iranian front company that operates in Kabul.)

Another Taliban commander had this to say: “Our religions and histories are different, but the goal is the same. We both want to kill Americans.”

In its Friday afternoon news dump before Labor Day weekend, the White House announced that President Obama had invited the ten leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to join him for a summit in New York on September 24.  This will be the second U.S.-ASEAN summit, and the first to be held in the U.S.  

President George W. Bush attempted to hold a similar meeting with the members of ASEAN toward the end of his second term, but the effort was ultimately dropped, as the administration was unable to figure out how to have a summit with ASEAN without extending an invitation to Burma, one of its members.  By holding the forthcoming U.S.-ASEAN summit on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, which ASEAN senior leaders will be attending anyway, the Obama administration is attempting to finesse this problem. Nonetheless, President Obama is unlikely to escape the Burma dilemma, particularly if the junta is represented at the UN by a member of its leadership, which is currently the target of U.S. sanctions. These sanctions, which are directed at individuals responsible for gross human rights violations in Burma, have been renewed twice by the Obama administration even as it attempted to engage with the military junta over the past 18 months.  

Attempts to talk with the junta have failed to deliver anything approximating progress, and the administration has recently become tougher on Burma and made it known that it supports a UN Commission of Inquiry to examine allegations that the junta had committed crimes against humanity. In particular, the Obama administration has made no secret of their belief that the commission should focus its inquiry squarely on Than Shwe, the reclusive junta leader who last week surprised many Burma watchers by resigning his military post, presumably in order to move into a civilian leadership position. The State Department responded to Than Shwe's shedding of his military uniform by saying, "A dictator in civilian clothing is still a dictator."  

Should Than Shwe decide to attend the UN General Assembly as Burma's head of state (despite resigning his military title, he remains firmly in charge), the U.S.-ASEAN summit would end up being quite awkward for the White House.  While hiding behind the UN General Assembly allows the White House to avoid the embarrassing spectacle of hosting a retinue of Burmese thugs in America, our hosting arrangements with the UN headquarters also mean that the U.S. would be obliged to admit people who would otherwise be barred from the U.S. so that they may attend UN events. In other words, President Obama could still find himself standing next to one of the world's most reviled despots, less than two months before Than Shwe will probably force through a sham election specifically designed to institutionalize his and the military's authority indefinitely.  

On several levels, deepening U.S. engagement with ASEAN makes a lot of sense: There are a number of important states in the regional grouping, such as Indonesia and Vietnam, who could tip the regional balance and who have been keeping a wary eye on China's rise.  At the same, time, the odious presence of Burma—and the ASEAN policies of non-interference and consensus decision-making, which lead to mild responses to the situation in Burma—makes it a tricky act to pull off in practice.  Previous administrations have attempted to thread the needle by paying lip service to cooperation with ASEAN as an institution, while relying primarily on bilateral relations or informal sub-regional discussions with the countries the U.S. actually wants to deal with. The Obama administration has made it clear that they intend to change this practice. The recent U.S. decision to join the East Asia Summit – which has ASEAN at its core – won the Obama administration praise across the region (with the notable exception of Beijing) and has strengthened that group's claim as the foundation of an emerging regional political architecture.  But if the EAS starts to make progress towards its operational aspirations, it is only going to become more difficult for the U.S. to get closer to ASEAN while keeping its distance from Burma. 

Happy Labor Day!  Easily the most ironic holiday on the American calendar, today is the day we all celebrate work by ... taking off work!  

1. Democratic Triage?  The New York Times reviews the Democratic strategy to hold the House: 

As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers...

With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Reps. Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles.

Yikes.  This kind of "incumbent party makes hard choices" story is inevitable in a year like this, but it is really something to see it come out in early September.  Sizeable numbers of incumbent Democrats lack a "path to victory," even this far out?

Note the mention of Mary Jo Kilroy.  She's the representative from OH-15 (Columbus), which in past cycles has been rightly touted as the quintessential swing district.  As goes Columbus, so goes the nation.  

And if Columbus is gone in September...

Lest we think that the New York Times is too bearish on Dem prospects, the AP also reports that Democratic insiders are writing off not only Kilroy, but Steve Driehaus of OH-1 (Cincinnati) and John Boccieri of OH-16 (Canton).  Though Obama won OH-1 by 11 points and OH-15 by 9 points, and split historically Republican OH-16, these three Dems are "all but certain to lose," according to the AP's Democratic sources.  Dems are also worried about Betty Sutton of OH-13 (Akron), Zack Space of OH-18 (Chillicothe) and Charlie Wilson of OH-6 (Marietta).  

For those of you keeping count, Dem strategists think 6 of Ohio's 10 House Democrats are in danger.  The only safe Democrats are from districts centered in the party strongholds of the industrial northern tier - Toledo, Cleveland, and Youngstown, i.e. the Dukakis coalition. 

That recent PPP poll showing Ohio voters preferring Bush to Obama by 8 points is starting to make a lot of sense.  

2. A Divider, Not A Uniter. At the APSA meeting in Washington, D.C., scholars debated how and why President Obama has become such a polarizer.  I wonder if comments like this from David Plouffe were mentioned as a cause:

"Right now — and this is a problem for them — I do think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, they are the leaders of the party," Plouffe said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "There is an intolerance in that party and an extremism that I think is where the real energy is, and so I think you'll see in '11 and '12 with that presidential primary, those are going to be the people who come out to vote."

Jabs like this come from top presidential advisors with great regularity, sometimes even from the president himself, and they started very early in the president's term.  The White House set up the "Party of No" meme in the first quarter of 2009 as an attempt to de-legitimize policy disagreements from conservatives.  The implication is always the same: while a handful of the president's opponents have legitimate differences of opinion, the bulk of them are either hacks or radicals.  

In other words, if you disagree with the president, it's evidence that something is wrong with you.

There’s a phrase that never crosses President Obama’s lips, even as he prepares to propose new tax cuts for small business.  The phrase:  permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

Such cuts were championed by Presidents Reagan, Kennedy, and Coolidge.  But Obama prefers – indeed, he insists on – temporary, targeted cuts that don’t reduce actual tax rates.  Why is he sticking with this policy?  I’ll get to that after breaking down the parts of the Reagan-JFK-Coolidge type cuts.

Start with the wealthy.  As a group, they’re the most economically productive people in the country.  That’s why they’re rich.  They’re the biggest investors in the economy – in companies, in startups, in entrepreneurs – because they’ve got the discretionary funds to do so.  It’s their investments that produce private sector jobs.

Despite this, Obama would punish them by raising taxes on income, capital gains, dividends, and estates as of January 1, 2011, for individuals earning more than $200,00 a year and couples making more than $250,000.  If his goal is to stir economic growth and create jobs, his policy is counterproductive.

Next, marginal tax rates.  These are the ones that affect potential investors the most.  (The top rate is critical to wealthy investors.)  Cutting them reduces the rate on the next dollar earned.  This, in turn, creates a strong incentive to invest because the investor will earn more than he would have if rates were higher.  Higher marginal rates, which Obama would impose, are a disincentive to invest. 

But why must the cuts be across-the-board?  First, these are the cuts that historically have had the greatest economic impact.  Second, they incentivize everyone.  Third, they’re the least complicated and easiest to apply.  Fourth, they eliminate uncertainty – a strong disincentive all by itself – about who is eligible for lower tax rates and who isn’t.  Fifth, they’re more effective than targeted cuts and less subject to the biases and fads of the political class.

Lastly, tax cuts that are permanent.  They’re a no-brainer.  They have the most powerful incentive effect.  Investors are leery, and quite naturally so, of cuts that vanish in a year or two.  But if the cuts are permanent, investors can envision long-term gains.  Short-term profits are not to be sneered at. But the prospect of lasting gains – which investors crave most of all – is unparalleled as a catalyst for investment.

So what is Obama’s problem?  His grounds for opposing permanent, across-the-board cuts in marginal tax rates are three-fold:  ideology, economic inexperience, and political control.  He wants growth and jobs, but he’s fearful, as many liberals are, of the rich becoming richer.  He’s not inclined to rely on them to boost the economy.  That would be “trickle down economics.”  And he’s especially against cutting the tax rate on capital gains, even if tax revenues rise as a result. That would violate “fairness.”

Not many people can define GDP (the value of a nation’s output). But everyone can define jobs. So the fact that the U.S. economy is growing and GDP is rising—inching up might be a better description—pales into insignificance compared to the fact that the job market remains in the doldrums. No use telling voters about positive revisions of earlier numbers, or the lay-offs of temporary census workers, or that the private sector added 67,000 jobs in August, the eighth consecutive month of private-sector job growth. That sort of information is of more immediate consequence to Wall Street, which cheered at the up-bump after the worst August since 2001, than to Main Street, which focused on the fact that a total of 54,000 jobs disappeared in August, and that the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent in July.

Also, remember: A Pew Research Center Surveys found that one out of every four employed workers—some 35 million in all—had at one point in the recession been out of work. Many are now in jobs they find less satisfying and/or lower paying. Add them and workers too discouraged to keep looking for jobs to the reserve army of the unemployed, and you have a large number of very unhappy campers. 

The good news, as President Obama pointed out after the new data had been released, is that so far this year the private sector has added 763,000 jobs. All in all, this mixed report shows that the jobs market remains dreary, but that the economy is not about to descend into the double-dip predicted by the pessimists.

Back in 2007, THE WEEKLY STANDARD heralded the arrival of three rising Republicans in the House who weren’t then household names. We dubbed them the Young Guns. Eric Cantor of Virginia was the deputy whip, a backbencher elevated by then-whip Roy Blunt. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin hadn’t quite come into his own yet as an influential policy maven. Kevin McCarthy of California was a freshman with a gift for understanding the ups and downs of electoral politics. The three were “agitating for the party to return to its small-government roots and to retake the House.”

Admit it, you’d never heard of these guys back then. If you still haven’t, you soon will. In 2007, they hadn’t thought of themselves as a team, either. But the stories noted their complementary talents: Cantor as party leader in the House, Ryan as policy thinker, McCarthy as strategist and candidate recruiter. They were galvanized into action. They formed a fast-on-its-feet campaign outfit to help GOP challengers win House seats. Its name was inevitable .  .  . Young Guns.

The three have now become major players in Washington and around the country. Should Republicans win back the House on November 2, Cantor will be a shoo-in for majority leader. With his Road Map for America’s Future, Ryan is the party’s leading policy wonk and will be chairman of the budget committee. McCarthy is the favorite to be majority whip. He’s been the chief recruiter of an impressive army of House candidates this year.

Meanwhile, Young Guns has become the gold standard of Republican campaign crews. To be dubbed a Young Gun, candidates must meet benchmarks: a campaign staff, a detailed plan for winning, fundraising goals. Potential donors, particularly PACs, ask if a candidate is a Young Gun. It’s become a mark of credibility.

Now the three have published a book, titled Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders. They’re not only tough on Democrats but also on the Republicans who controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006. Advance copies distributed in late August stirred hyperbolic Democratic attacks and overwrought media analysis. Nancy Pelosi’s office issued a “fact sheet” under this headline: “Congressional Republicans Release Details of Agenda; Includes Privatizing Social Security, Ending Medicare.” The press tried to foment conflict between Cantor, Ryan, and McCarthy and other Republican leaders, citing the book to suggest Cantor might challenge John Boehner for House speaker if Republicans take over. “Typical media wedge-driving,” one Republican said.

It’s the attention the book has gotten that’s most revealing. In 2007, it was a bit farfetched to think the trio of young guns would soon become important political figures with national influence. But they have.

TWS contributing editor Charles Krauthammer argues that Obama sees Afghanistan only as a distraction. 

James K. Glassman: "The Failure of the Liberal Economic Experiment?"

"Why Sen. Barbara Boxer will lose to Carly Fiorina."

Ground Zero mosque imam receives 'sketchy' tax break.

Chris Christie plans "multiple out-of-state campaign stops," Guy Benson reports.

Iowahawk: "Barack, Can We Talk?"

Ben Smith reports today that Joe Sestak is distancing himself from the J Street sponsored, "infamous" (in the words of the Orthodox Union), anti-Israel letter accusing Israel of "collective punishment" for defending itself against Hamas terrorists bent on murdering Israelis. Collective punishment is specifically designated as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions, and the term's use was rejected by all but 12 percent of the House, all Democrats now known as the Gaza 54. That number dropped to 53 when Yvette Clark distanced herself from the letter almost immediately after it was sent to President Obama. 

Sestak had been the target of an apparently effective ad campaign by the Emergency Committee for Israel, chaired by my very own boss, Bill Kristol. Sestak's decision to distance himself from the letter marks a major reversal from his earlier posture, as reported by Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent back in February of this year: 

Sestak acknowledged that signing on to the letter was politically risky, and that it could be used "against me." But he said that it was more important to him to stand up for his convictions.

It's possible Sestak's ‘convictions’ have changed in the last six months, but more likely that we are seeing the proverbial campaign trail conversion of a desperate candidate facing bad poll numbers (the latest survey out of PA had Sestak down 10 points to Republican Pat Toomey) and struggling to raise money (Sestak's recent ad buy was for just under 50k, a paltry sum in PA). 

The letter's sponsor, the anti-anti-Hamas J Street, launched a new micro-site today, at 3 in the afternoon the day before Labor Day weekend, lashing out at the group's pro-Israel critics, including Kristol and Gary Bauer (who has an excellent op-ed in Politico today expressing his support for Israeli democracy and his skepticism about the prospects for a two-state solution). The site's tag line is "They Don't Speak for Us." Whoever "us" is, apparently it no longer includes Joe Sestak. 

The BBC World Service recently broadcast a two-part investigative documentary, hosted by John Sweeney, on the useful idiot, a concept that Lenin didn’t invent so much as expropriate to denote the semi-witting accomplices of Western imperialism.  Although more frequently employed in the service of deriding apologists of the totalitarian system Lenin created, the phenomenon to which useful idiocy alludes is transferable to any and all modern tyrannies.  (The closely related concept of ‘fellow traveler’ is not nearly as fungible because it still retains the definition Trotsky intended in Literature and Revolution—that of being a halfway-there Bolshevik whose political future was as yet undecided by historical circumstances.)  The Sweeney documentary examines the Soviet Union, Red China, apartheid South Africa, and Ba’athist Iraq, and while all interviewees and case studies are well chosen, one is still left feeling unenlightened as to the etiology of this troubling condition. What causes useful idiocy, and how is it that so many sufferers are eventually cured? 

A common precipitant is a broad ideological sympathy with the long-term goals of a tyrannical state matched by an incuriosity about measuring its touted claims with tangible reality. Very often this isn’t entirely the sympathizer’s fault as the state makes every effort to mask its deformities and keep the fantasy in tact. “I was taken around and shown things,” a very candid Doris Lessing tells Sweeney. “I can’t understand why I was so gullible.” The Potemkin dupe may have begun with Catherine the Great, but it is a more rampant species in the twentieth century. None has grimly excelled or exceeded the category better than Maxim Gorky.

Lenin’s favorite novelist had spent the formative early years of the Soviet Union on the isle of Capri and thus counts as something of a Westernized observer to his native Russia. After being welcomed home by an ingratiating Stalin, then badly in need of writers who hadn’t been arrested or shot, Gorky paid a visit to the notorious penal colony at Solovki in order to see how counter-revolutionaries were being rehabilitated by the state. The wretched reality of the place been masked in advance—with well-fed guards dressed up as prisoners—save for one minor oversight. Within three hundred yards of where Gorky and his retinue had alighted, a ship docked at Popov Island was being loaded up by a visibly bedraggled gang of real inmates.

As the Wall Street Journal's John Jurgensen wrote back in July, this summer's concert scene has been a depressing one, with more than your usual share of musical acts cancelling shows and some cancelling their tours altogether. But the administration's Recovery Summer tour, starring Barack Obama and Joe Biden, had few shows to begin with, and it only got worse from there. Even NPR has chimed in, entitling a segment, "'Recovery Summer' Ends With Economic Pothole."

As NPR's Scott Horsley notes,

Obama joked back in June that the hungry road crews in Columbus would keep area restaurants busy. But it didn't work out that way for a nearby pizzeria.

"We're third generation — started in 1939," said John Plank of the restaurant he runs with his brother and sister.

Plank said business has been slow this summer, in part because the road construction makes it hard for customers to reach his restaurant. He hoped to at least capitalize on the day of the president's visit, but the expected crowds didn't materialize.

In fact, if Recovery Summer were an actual tour, both Obama and Biden would probably be doing free-form jazz by now at some sparsely attended theme park amphitheater (headlined by a puppet show).

Jay Cost noted that Democratic senator Ron Wyden sent a letter last week to Oregon health authority director Bruce Goldberg, in which Wyden states that the federal government "has never had the flexibility" or the "will" to implement "innovative solutions" to our health care woes. Can you imagine a statement from a Democratic senator more directly opposed to the position of the Obama White House? Wyden goes on to encourage Goldberg to ask the federal government for a waiver to let Oregon opt out of Obamacare's requirement that everyone buy federally approved health insurance, because, he writes, "the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates." 

Since the heart of Obamacare is mandates and not affordability, this is quite a statement from a man who voted for the president's signature piece of legislation—and it's a strong indication of how well his support for that legislation is playing out on the Oregon campaign trail.  At Commentary, Jennifer Rubin writes:

[T]his suggests that, post-election, there might just be enough votes for “Repeal and Reform.”  After all, Wyden is a liberal Democrat, so if he thinks the bill is bad, why wouldn’t his sure-to-be-shell-shocked colleagues (those who survive the election) agree?  And finally, it seems that every conservative senator, congressman, governor, and state legislator should be adopting Wyden’s position and challenging their opponents to do the same.  Heck, if 50 states opt out of the individual mandate, the bill is essentially kaput.

Liberal Susan Estrich makes her side's case that all is not lost for the Democrats in the lower chamber. She makes some good points, but I have to disagree with this:

Lastly, for all the problems with the Democratic agenda, at least there is one. What swept the Republicans to victory in 1994 was not (just) running against the administration, but the perception that they had a unifying agenda - a Contract with America - and were ready to govern. The Republicans have every reason to want to nationalize this election (after all, the generic Republican is a national construct). But other than being against everything the president is for, they have yet to put forth anything resembling a governing plan.

First, do the Democrats really have "something?" "It would have been worse under McCain!" doesn't really count, in my opinion. Second, the Contract with America did not come out until late in the season, so its effect on vote choices is questionable. Third, you can beat something with nothing. The Democrats ran a fairly vague and issueless campaign in 2006. So did Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, for that matter. When the incumbent party is as unpopular as the Obama Democrats are today, "nothing" doesn't look that bad.  Fourth, what exactly is "nothing?"  If individual candidates campaign on their own promises to reduce spending, for instance, isn't that running on "something," even if they don't sign their name to some central document?  Why must the "something" come from Washington, D.C.? 

In a recent interview with Human Events, Mississippi governor Haley Barbour talks about the rise of Southern Republicans, arguing that it had to do with generational and economic transformations. Liberal bloggers Steve Benen and Steve Kornacki reject this argument in separate posts, arguing instead that the South’s move to Republicanism was tied up wholly in racial politics. 

Both Benen and Kornacki take one truthful element of the Southern realignment, expand it so that it explains the whole thing, then relentlessly hammer the same point for hundreds of subsequent words. Their work amounts to an oversimplified account of the partisan realignment of the South.

There is no doubt that race matters in the South.  Nor is there any doubt that the Democratic Party’s shift on the issue was a defining moment in the ongoing post-Roosevelt realignment, and that the GOP ultimately became the beneficiary of this shift. Let me stipulate all this clearly and unequivocally at the outset, with the addendum that race matters a great deal in the North, too.  Check out, for instance, the pattern of racialized voting in New York City’s 2009 mayoral election, drawn by Sean Trende.    

My point here is that Benen and Kornacki leave too much of the story on the cutting room floor. 

For starters, the rift between Northern and Southern factions within the Democratic party did not suddenly emerge at the 1948 convention or with the 1960s civil rights battle, as their pieces suggest. It could be seen as early as 1933.  A clique of Southern senators - Carter Glass and Harry Byrd of Virginia, Josiah Bailey of North Carolina, and Thomas Gore of Oklahoma - opposed many key items of the early New Deal. Southern resistance to FDR's reform agenda stiffened after his reelection in 1936.  They balked at his Supreme Court packing proposal, but there was more to it than that.  Thanks to the Wagner Act and the efforts of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, labor had won huge gains in Northern industry; many from that region were worried that Yankee capital would migrate from the high-wage North to the low-wage South.  Thus, the Fair Labor Standards Act was born, designed to phase in minimum wage and maximum hours that would principally affect Southern industry.  Southern Democrats managed to table it temporarily in the House. Even so, it eventually passed with virtually uniform support among Northern Democrats, but a split in the Southern Democratic caucus. FDR responded in 1938 by trying to purge anti-New Dealers via party primaries.  He concentrated mostly on Southern Democrats, and his attempts mostly failed.

Put simply, Roosevelt’s victory in 1936 signaled the arrival of organized labor as a political force in the North, and especially in the Democratic party.  The South, meanwhile, had resisted unionization.  By 1940, about 20 percent of all workers nationwide were unionized, but only 11 percent of Southern workers were.  This led to an intra-party economic cleavage centered around issues of labor and wages that has since become a major element of the Republican-Democratic divide of the 21st century.  It has to do with race – just as many things in the South do – but race was not the central point of this particular conflict.

Earlier this week, Big Government posed an interesting question that remains unanswered: If Illinois Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias is a dual U.S.-Greek citizen, and lived in Greece for more than a year in the late 1990s, how did he get around Greece’s military service requirement? 

Under Greek law, all citizens must serve in the military once they turn 18. Much like in Israel, Greek citizens will perform a period of military service after high school. 

Alexi Giannoulias was a college graduate when he came to Greece – an age meeting the requirement for military service. So how did he get around the requirement?

As we await an explanation from the Giannoulias camp as to how he successfully dodged the draft (the Giannoulias camp won’t return my phone calls), the news that Alexi Giannoulias is a dual citizen should itself raise other questions.

According to an August 16, 2000 memorandum signed by Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Money, the “possession and/or use of a foreign passport” may be a disqualifying condition to receive a security clearance. Does Alexi Giannoulias hold a Greek passport? Would he have to renounce his Greek citizenship in order to receive classified briefings?

Greece is an ally, but we don’t share everything with every ally. Should a U.S. senator receiving some of the most sensitive information our government collects be a citizen of another country at the same time?

Senator Scott Brown writes in today's Wall Street Journal: 

Those of us who hope for peace in the Middle East applaud the meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The fact that Palestinians finally agreed to direct negotiations, without preconditions, is a positive step. But let's not delude ourselves: There can never be peace in the Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran.

I don't pretend to have all the answers on how to end the conflict between Arabs and Israelis, but I do know that it is doomed so long as Iran remains a menacing actor on the world stage. Now is the time to ratchet up the pressure, to further isolate Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and to impose even more punishing sanctions on the Iranian economy. For this effort to succeed, we must enlist the full support of neighboring Arab states.

I took my first trip to the region last month. I went primarily to listen and learn. I met with both Mr. Netanyahu and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Upon my return, all the talk of diplomacy was put into grim perspective when Ahmadinejad posed in front of cameras with his country's first unmanned long-range bomber. He wasn't very subtle about the purpose, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies.

Read it here.