Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr's talk show from Dallas yesterday.  It's here.

JUNE 16,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:22 P.M. ET: 

U.S. TROOPS TO BAGHDAD – From London's Daily Mail: "President Obama announced on Monday evening that US ground troops 'equipped for combat' are being sent to Iraq - just days after claiming that no American soldiers would be deployed to the war-torn country.  In a letter to Congress, the president said American troops will be returning to Iraq only three years after they left and their deployment began on Sunday.  However, Obama said that their only purpose will specifically be to protect US personnel and the US Embassy in Baghdad - and not join in the fierce fighting raging outside the Iraqi capital."  Soon we'll be told that they're going there to stop global warming.  Many would believe it.

MAJORITY TURNS THUMBS DOWN ON BENGHAZI – From CNN:  "Six in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a new poll shows.  The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday indicates only 37% are satisfied with the administration’s response to the September 2012 assault that killed four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.  Republicans have been strident in their criticism of the slow-to-evolve explanation of what happened in Benghazi, first said to be linked to demonstrations over an anti-Muslim film produced in the United States. That proved untrue.  The administration also has come under scrutiny over security arrangements at the consulate before the attack and its response to the armed assault by militants as it was happening.  The issue has been a major point of attack against Hillary Clinton, who oversaw the State Department at the time and ultimately took responsibility for the safety of diplomatic personnel."

THE HYPOCRITES – As readers know, there's a worldwide campaign by pro-Palestinian ideologues to boycott anything Israeli, which makes this note from The Times of Israel particularly ironic:  "Doctors in Israel performed surgery on Amina Abbas, the wife of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, at a private clinic near Tel Aviv over the weekend, as tensions between Israel and the PA mounted over the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers by Palestinian terrorists."   I guess Mrs. Abbas didn't get the memo.  Either that or ArafatCare doesn't cover Arab hospitals.

AND WE THINK BAGHDAD IS BAD – From Breitbart:  "It was another bloody weekend in Obama's hometown of Chicago as the city celebrated Fathers day. By the time the weekend drew to a close, two were dead and 25 wounded in violence across the city.  As the weekend began on Friday, June 13, a 15-year-old boy was among six wounded on the City's South and West sides. Most of the victims were in their 20s and 30s but on Friday afternoon a 15-year-old was wounded in Avalon Park."  Note the interest of the president.

June 16, 2014       Permalink

WASHINGTON CONFUSION – AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  As the Iraq crisis deepens, and we see the chance that Iraq may dissolve as a nation, there are calls for air strikes.  But who do we strike?  Two great reporters, Eli Lake and Kimberly Dozier, tell us that we really don't know.  From the Daily Beast: 

The U.S. military has the capability to conduct air strikes over Iraq within hours. The problem is they don’t know exactly who they are supposed to be targeting.

President Obama is repositioning military assets closer to Iraq, in case he wants to strike at the terrorists who are threatening to tear the country apart. The problem is, the U.S. doesn’t know who it’s supposed to hit.

Current and retired American defense and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that the CIA and the Pentagon are not certain who exactly makes up the forces that have taken so much of Iraq. Moreover, these intelligence and defense officials says that they believe that some of the people fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are former U.S. allies who could be turned against the hard-core fanatics—if they can be identified.

“We don’t have boots on ground providing intelligence and we don’t have confidence in information that the Iraqi government provides, because they’ve [been] so heavy-handed in the use of force against Sunni villages,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee.

In other words, the American intelligence community is only now scrambling to draw up a potential target list in Iraq, and possibly Syria—even though the threat of ISIS has been visibly growing for years. And while the analysts are trying to figure out who they should zero in on, Obama administration lawyers are wrestling with what legal authorities the president might have to carry out an attack.

While ISIS is taking over cities like Mosul and Tikrit—acquiring the equipment of a modern army in the process—a strike on ISIS wouldn’t be as simple as, say, attacking one of Saddam’s tank columns during the last Iraq war. It requires a different kind of intelligence. The prime objective is to detain or kill individuals who are indispensable to the networks used by terrorists to conduct their attacks. This model means that the drone strike is the last piece of a long process to identify, locate and verify where an individual target resides. And while that work has been enhanced by high-tech gadgets that can intercept cellphone traffic, it still requires the basic tradecraft of human spying.

But the United States lost much of its visibility into the foreign fighter network in Iraq when it withdrew forces from Iraq in 2011 and pulled its intelligence officers—CIA and defense—inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, according to a former senior U.S. official who had been stationed there during the process.

COMMENT:  Poor human intelligence – intelligence about people and their motives, not about equipment – has always been an American weakness. 

Obama's pathetic decision to pull everything out of Iraq comes back to haunt him.  But it isn't Obama who will pay the price down the line.  The United States will pay the price.

June 16, 2014       Permalink

OUR PRESIDENT, HAPPY AT LAST – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  The world is coming apart, but look what's happening in sunny California.  From the Desert Sun: 

President Barack Obama is scheduled to fly out of the Coachella Valley with his wife and daughter on Monday morning, ending a sunny weekend of golf in Rancho Mirage.

Although much of his trip was recreational, escalating violence in Iraq demanded the president's attention on Sunday morning.

Those rotten Islamists, delaying our president's golf!  A million curses on their miserable heads.

Obama was briefed by White House officials before he teed off at Porcupine Creek, a private estate owned by billionaire Larry Ellison.

The president spent the afternoon inside Thunderbird Heights, a gated community where the home of interior designer Michael S. Smith and his partner James Costos likely played host to the first family. Obama appointed Costos, a prominent campaign donor, as a U.S. ambassador, and Smith is a close friend of first lady Michelle Obama, who joined the president in the desert along with eldest daughter Malia.

The White House did not release information about how Michelle Obama and Malia spent their time in the valley. Nearly all of the first family's activities were held behind closed doors or on private estates.

This was the third time in a year that President Obama has traveled to the Coachella Valley, and it appears he has taken a liking to the area because each successive visit has been less work-related and more like vacation.

COMMENT:  You know, appearances count in politics.  Does Obama care about his being seen lounging with the very, very, very rich while international crises boil over?  If this had been BUSH (!!) the press would have been in an uproar.  But it's Barack (come to save us), so he gets a media pass.

The president should be in Washington, making policy, meeting with members of Congress on the international situation, and organizing the government to deal with growing threats.

I'm not so sure he cares.  It's always been about Barack, never about America, and it shows.

June 16, 2014       Permalink

THE VERDICT – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:   Increasingly, even journalists for liberal papers are pronouncing negative verdicts on Obama's foreign policy.  Fred Hiatt, at WaPo, notes that Obama's administration was at first divided between two schools of thought on foreign policy – the engagers, represented by Hillary Clinton, and the minimalists, represented by Joe Biden.   Ultimately, the minimalists won, and Obama started taking minimal action in foreign situation.

Now Iraq is disintegrating. Of course, as many commentators write, Iraq’s politicians are to blame. But if the United States had maintained a presence, it might have steered Iraqi politics in a more constructive direction.

If Libya, Syria and Iraq were only human rights catastrophes — as each assuredly is — the Minimalists might hold firm. Terrible things happen in many places, they would say, and Americans can’t set them all right.

But the unraveling threatens the United States, too. A ruthless medieval dictatorship controlling territory from Syria into Iraq is luring and training Islamist extremists, including from America and Europe, who “could end up being a significant threat to our homeland,” Obama acknowledged Thursday. So he has had to turn back to Iraq, facing nothing but unpalatable options.

If Minimalism doesn’t work, what would? The answer will be different in each case. It won’t generally be to send in the Marines. It will, though, rest on lessons that the country learned, for a time, after 2001: Stateless, ungoverned territories can be dangerous to the United States. Ignoring dangers doesn’t make them go away. If we want countries to help us, including by combating terrorists, we have to help them, too, with training and aid that improves people’s lives.

It’s true that helping states build their capacity to govern is difficult and time-consuming and doesn’t always work. But over the years, the United States has helped more countries, and in more ways, than many Americans realize — including, with Obama’s commitment, Afghanistan. Engagement is hard, but over time it can succeed. Which is more than the other team can say.

COMMENT:  Well said.  Read the whole column.  Obama's policies have failed, and we are in greater danger as a result.  Compare please to Ronald Reagan, called a "warmonger" by the usual suspects, but whose legacy was an honorable peace.

June 16, 2014       Permalink

KNOW YOUR ENEMY – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  Islamism is on the march, not only in the Mideast, but in Africa.  We've had a taste of it here.  Be forewarned.  From Fox: 

Kenyan officials said that at least 48 people were killed by Islamist militants Sunday in a town not far from a coastal resort popular with Western tourists.

And the tourists will be next.

David Kimaiyo said Monday the gunmen targeted two hotels, a bank and a police station in the town of Mpeketoni. Kenyan officials said at least two of the hotels were set on fire. It was not immediately clear how many attackers were involved, but a police spokeswoman said it was believed that "several dozen" took part.

Sky News reported that the gunmen's assault began at approximately 8 p.m. local time (1 p.m. Eastern Time) and gunshots were heard four hours later. Cafes and bars in the town were reportedly packed with people watching the World Cup soccer match between Switzerland and Ecuador. Kenya's National Disaster Operations Center said military surveillance planes were launched shortly afterward.

One police commander said that as residents were watching the World Cup at the Breeze View Hotel, the gunmen pulled the men aside and ordered the women to watch as they killed them. The attackers told the women that that's what Kenyan troops are doing to Somalia men inside Somalia. The police commander insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to share that detail of the attack.

Kenya's Interior Ministry said the gunmen arrived in two hijacked minivans. An army spokesman told Sky News that the Al Qaeda-linked, Somalia-based terror group al-Shabaab is likely behind the attack, though no group has claimed responsibility.

Al-Shabaab has been blamed for a number of attacks in retaliation for Kenya's deployment of troops in neighboring Somalia, where the group has been trying to seize power. Most notably, al-Shabaab was thought to behind last September's attack on Nairobi's Westgate shopping mall, in which 67 people were killed.

The U.S., U.K., France, Australia, and Canada have all recently upgraded their terror threat warnings for the country.

Mpeketoni is about 30 miles southwest of the tourist center of Lamu. Tourism in Mpeketoni is mostly local, with few foreigners visiting the region. The town is about 60 miles from the Somali border and 360 miles from Nairobi.

COMMENT:  Barack Obama is of Kenyan heritage.  His father was Kenyan.  Will he show any interest in this? 

It is startling to see how Islamism is rising, and becoming more audacious.  At the same time, the far left in the United States is also rising, with its corrupt base on American college campuses.  Is there a coincidence here?  I don't think so.  Both Islamists and the fringe left hate the United States, and you don't see them criticizing each other.

June 16,  2014     Permalink

JUNE 15,  2014

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET: 

WHAT, AGAIN? – Hillary Clinton is really falling apart.  In a new interview she uttered the following nonsense:  "Whoever runs has to recognize that the American political system is probably the most difficult, even brutal, in the world.”  Really?  As Washington Post reporter Ed O'Keefe tweeted in response, "Would Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto agree?"  Both female leaders were, of course, murdered.  We have to wonder whether there really is something not right with Hillary.  It's a gaffe a day.

SHADES OF VIETNAM, 1975 – From Fox:  "The Obama administration said Sunday the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will remain open amid the growing sectarian violence in Iraq but will increase security and that some embassy staff will be temporarily evacuated.  State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the staff will be moved to U.S. Consulate Generals posts in Basra and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman, Jordan.  The embassy is within the Baghdad's Green Zone. It has about 5,000 personnel, making it the largest U.S. diplomatic post in the world."  It's also supposed to be the most secure.  Yeah, right.

CNN RAPPED ON BIAS...BY SHAREHOLDERS – From Breitbart:  "Time Warner Chairman and CEO Jeff Bewkes was blasted for CNN's left-wing bias at Time Warner's annual shareholders meeting Friday. The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond reports that Bewkes was confronted by shareholder Justin Danhof of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, with a litany of complaints about CNN's sharp turn to the left under Jeff Zucker.  Danhof's comments were met with applause from other shareholders."  The bias, and perception of bias, are some of the most important factors in CNN's ratings doldrums.  But the people running the cable network refuse to see.

June 15, 2014       Permalink

STUNNING – AT 11:40 A.M. ET:  That's the word for Obama's reckless commencement address at the University of California, Irvine, in which he once again demonstrated his contempt for his country.  In this case he mocked and ridiculed anyone who doesn't believe in the religion of global warming.  Mark Sappenfield, in the Christian Science Monitor, wonders how smart this is: 

Obama said some members of Congress duck the question of human-induced climate change, otherwise they'd "be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot."

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that the overwhelming weight of scientific research and analysis backs Obama on climate change. The fact is that 43 percent of Americans don't agree, and another 9 percent aren't sure, according to a new Bloomberg poll. This statement characterizes the belief of that 43 percent: "I think scientists manipulate their findings for political reasons."

Forty-three percent is a pretty big fringe.

And I'd question the assertion that "...the overwhelming weight of scientific research and analysis backs Obama on climate change."  There actually are many shades of opinion on specific aspects of the issue, and science isn't about consensus anyway.  It's about proof and observation.  In addition, many of the skeptics are heavy hitters in scientific fields.

Further...

...the comment brings back shades of 2008, when candidate Obama was speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco. Addressing the resentment in rust belt Pennsylvania towns, Obama said: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Clearly, Obama is not a president for the right. But comments like these – and the ones made Saturday – raise the question of how well he understands the right, if at all.

COMMENT:  I doubt if he cares.  Obama's world exists between his ears.  He's remarkably uncurious.  In his second term we're beginning to see the Obama we feared – ideological, dogmatic, yet strangely uninformed and undisciplined.  Great shape we're in.

June 15, 2014        Permalink

MITT?  REALLY? – AT 10:48 A.M. ET:   It may seem odd, but there's actually a bit of a boomlet for Mitt Romney for the 2016 GOP nomination.

The reason:   There is no obvious favorite for the nomination, and Romney retains a certain amount of stature within the party.  He's "presidential."  Of course, he also got beaten by Barack Obama, but the Republican Party has always been big on second chances.  From CBS: 

Far from being excommunicated by Republicans after his loss to President Obama, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is enjoying a brand resurgence of late, drawing several potential 2016 candidates to his "ideas summit" this weekend in Utah and even earning some 2016 speculation himself.

Meanwhile, some other potential candidates are in Iowa for the state Republican Party's convention there Saturday. And not to be left out, Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., was in California Friday to raise money for the Republican gubernatorial candidate there and participate in a Facebook chat.

It all adds up to a busy weekend for the early 2016 Republican presidential sweepstakes.

In Utah, Romney has billed his summit as an opportunity for a new generation of conservative thinkers and political leaders to strategize about the best path forward for the party and the country. No fewer than six potential 2016 GOP candidates made the trek to the Park City, including Christie, Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Gov. Susana Martinez, R-Ohio, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who was Romney's running mate in 2012.

Romney once worried he'd be branded a "loser for life" by his party if he failed to unseat the president, but it hasn't quite worked out that way. Despite the crowd of up-and-comers at his summit, many people there were more abuzz about the possibility that Romney himself could jump into the race in 2016.

Rommey "is the only person that can fill the stage," said MSNBC host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough at a private dinner on the summit's opening night, according to The Washington Post.

"He would be a giant in a field of midgets," added Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who's weighing a 2016 bid himself.

COMMENT:  Look, you never know.  I'd love to see a potential polling matchup between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.  Maybe the result will surprise us.

Both Romney and Hillary Clinton were born in 1947. 

June 15, 2014        Permalink

HILLARY NOT SIZZLING – AT 10:28 A.M. ET:  A new poll out confirms what we've begun to feel, that Hillary Clinton's political position inside her own party is deteriorating.  She's still well ahead, but traffic is heading in the opposite direction.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Most Democrats say they'd support Hillary Clinton if she wins their party's nomination, but a new national survey indicates only a minority are excited about that prospect.

The CNN/ORC International poll released Sunday also indicates the race for the GOP nomination remains a wide open contest with no obvious frontrunner among the potential Republican White House hopefuls.

According to the survey, 63% of Democrats and independents who lean toward the party said they'd most likely support Clinton as the nominee.

That's virtually unchanged from CNN's May poll, but down from the seven in 10 Democrats who in February said that they'd back the former secretary of state, senator and first lady.

Clinton has been the overwhelming frontrunner for the nomination in just about every national and state poll conducted over the past 18 months.

Twenty-percent of those questioned said they'd support a more conservative Democrat for the nomination, with 11% saying they'd back a more liberal candidate.

"Clinton remains the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, but there are signs that rank-and-file Democrats may be willing to consider other candidates," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

Forty-one percent of Democrats questioned said they'd be enthusiastic if Clinton wins the nomination, with 42% saying they'd be satisfied. One in 10 said they'd be dissatisfied, and 5% said they'd be upset.

"There are big differences between liberal and moderate Democrats that indicate that a primary challenger who runs to the right of Clinton may get more traction than a progressive challenger would," adds Holland.

"Fifty percent of liberal Democrats say they would be enthusiastic about Clinton winning the nomination, but only 36% of moderate Democrats feel the same way.

COMMENT:  Will moderate Democrats finally realize that they've been had by the Obama wing?  I hope so.  Maybe the party can be moved back to sane territory.  But the left wing is powerful, vicious, and well financed.

The Democratic nominating race now needs some real candidates.  It may not be in the bag for Hillary, if she runs at all.

June 15,  2014     Permalink