The New York Times editorial page chides Obama today for leaving the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan out of his speech to the General Assembly on Wednesday. If Obama doesn’t use his time today to try to rally support for the allied effort, he can expect criticism that he is turning his back on his “war of necessity.”

As my column today points out, dithering or timidity on Afghanistan after escalating the conflict is a path to political ruin for Obama.
The non-proliferation measure, meanwhile, seems to be more of the same stuff the North Koreans and Iranians have already been flouting.

“Under the resolution, nations that supply nuclear material and equipment under terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should “have a right to require” the return of the materials if the recipients either don’t comply with, or withdraw from, the treaty. The resolution would also be triggered if a nation terminates inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

President Barack Obama has made the issue of nuclear proliferation, and specifically Iran’s nuclear program, the centerpiece of his diplomatic efforts at his first U.N. General Assembly meeting. He has put his personal prestige and the prestige of his country on the line as the first U.S. president to chair a Security Council summit on Thursday. The resolution on nonproliferation could emerge as the most tangible victory of his inaugural U.N. week, arms-control analysts say.”

New York Times — Top General Denies Rift With Obama on Afghan War
 

Writers Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt got a call back from perhaps the most sought-after source in news today – Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the allied commander in Afghanistan whose grim assessment of the security situation in there has so roiled the political waters.

McChrystal sticks to banalities about the value of a healthy policy debate, and the administration likely only allowed the interview to knock down a Pentagon rumor that the counterinsurgency expert would resign his command if the president decides to abandon his escalation of the war after less than six months.

Either that, or it was a way for McChrystal to send the message that he really was thinking about quitting if he gets stiffed by the White House. Now the race is on to see if anyone can get the troop request number while the White House reevaluates. Mr. Woodward?

“General McChrystal would not address how many additional combat troops he would seek in a request he is preparing to send to the Defense Department. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Wednesday that the commander’s request would be submitted this week, even though no decisions would be made until the administration had finished its newest review of Afghanistan policy.

In his confidential assessment delivered on Aug. 30, General McChrystal warned that he needed more troops within the next year or else the conflict most likely would result in failure.”

New York Times — Panel’s Battles on Health Highlight a Broader Split 

If this is the legislative process as sausage making, it’s blood sausage.

The vicious fight raging in the Senate Finance Committee over what was hoped to be a compromise health bill is just beginning.
As Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio points out, news from the Congressional Budget Office that even the less-ambitious cuts from the compromise plan would push millions out of a popular Medicare program put Democrats back on their heels Wednesday.

But even after defeating a number of Republican amendments on party-line votes, including one that would have allowed for a 72-hour period to read the bill before a vote, the hard work has yet to begin.

Democratic amendments can’t be spiked so easily. Writers Robert Pear and Jackie Calmes look ahead:

“The committee has yet to wrestle with some of the biggest, most contentious issues: whether to create a government insurance plan to compete with private insurers; whether to impose a new tax on high-cost insurance policies; whether to require individuals to carry insurance and employers to help pay for it; whether to provide additional subsidies to low-income people to help them buy coverage. Senators have proposed amendments to address those issues and others, including abortion, illegal immigrants and medical malpractice.”

Washington Post — Democrats Seek to Tighten Oversight of Surveillance Methods

The Obama administration wants to renew the Patriot Act so reviled by liberals before the legislation expires at the end of the year.

And on the same day that the administration admitted that there’s nothing to do but indefinitely detain many of the terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without trial, administration lawyers had to go before one of the biggest cranks in the Senate, Pat Leahy, to explain why expanded surveillance powers over American citizens was a good idea.

The administration may back off it’s positions, but for now, defending Bush-era security measures makes administration underlings into prime targets.

Writer Ellen Nakashima followed their unhappy day.

“Among the most problematic provisions targeted by Democrats is one not due to expire. But Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine testified Wednesday that the national security letter — a tool that lets FBI agents obtain phone, bank and other personal records from third parties without judicial approval — has been subject to ‘serious misuse.’

The Patriot Act, passed in late 2001, broadened the FBI’s authority to use national security letters by lowering the standard for issuing them and by expanding the number of FBI officials who could sign them. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and two colleagues introduced a bill this week that would place a four-year expiration date on the letters’ authority and tighten the standard for issuing them.”

Financial Times — Merkel warns G20 against focus on imbalances

German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to enjoy slapping around President Obama and PM Gordon Brown.

Facing elections at home with an electorate that likes to see her twisting the lion’s tail and yanking Uncle Sam’s beard, Merkel laid down some diplomatic smack talk before she left for the G-20 summit that starts tonight in Pittsburgh.

While there will be happy talk about global warming, the question for the Euros is whether to address global financial regulations or trade questions.

Merkel says demands from London and the Washington that Germany do more debt-based economic stimulation in order increase demand for imported good is hogwash and an effort to distract from the need for new financial rules. She calls out Obama and Brown for being crippled by debt and beholden to financiers.

“‘We should not start looking for ersatz issues and forget the topic of financial market regulation,’ she said in her clearest comments to date. ‘We cannot afford to neglect this issue now.’

Ms Merkel turned on Washington, saying: ‘imbalances are an issue, but we must look at all the factors . . . We must talk about imbalances and name the reasons why they came into being.’”

–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.