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.

SEPTEMBER 14,  2014

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

SALUTE – From Reuters:  "Australia became the first country to detail troop numbers and aircraft for a U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq, as Washington drums up support for global action to counter the terrorist threat.  Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Sunday a 600-strong force comprising some 400 airforce personnel and 200 special forces soldiers would be deployed to a U.S. military base in the United Arab Emirates."  It's really time that the United States thanked Australia publicly for being such a remarkable ally over the decades.  The Aussies are always there for us.  But this administration would rather thank Turkey, which knifes us in the back whenever possible.

HILLARY IN IOWA – She pretty much made clear her current intentions.  From The New York Times:  In a speech that was her most overtly political since she left the State Department last year, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly hinted at her intentions. She laced her remarks with all manner of pregnant references to the state that kicks off the presidential nominating process and veiled asides about her plans.  “Hello, Iowa, I’m back!” she exclaimed upon taking the microphone, stretching out the “a” in “back” as she smiled in front of hay bales, an American flag and a John Deere tractor."  Wait a second.  Wasn't "I'm baaack" a line from a horror movie?  Yeah, it was.  And this is the sequel.

THIS IS NEWS? – From The Hill:  "President Obama recently vowed to retaliate against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if Syrian forces shoot at U.S. military planes, according to The New York Times."  When it's news that an American president will retaliate for the targeting of American planes, we're really in trouble.  Or, considering who's president, maybe we should be thankful for small blessings.

September 14,  2014     Permalink

WAR ON WOMEN – NOT – AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  One of the basics of the Democratic coalition is the women's vote.  Dems have depended on women to build solid majorities.  But, wait, something is happening.  From The Wall Street Journal:   

Democrats have a lot to worry about in the midterm elections but one of their sturdiest bulwarks against a GOP rout in the fall has been support among women. They have held significant leads over Republicans among women by a number of polling measures.

But the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll has some warning signs for Democrats who are counting on women to help them weather a tough political climate.

An important bellwether is the question of which party voters would prefer to control Congress, and it has long been the case that men prefer a Republican Congress and women favor a Democratic Congress.

But the poll conducted Sept. 3-7 found that women’s Democratic preference had shrunk to a 47%-40% margin — down from 51% -37% a month earlier. The swing was especially sharp among white women, who gave Democrats a 4 point edge in August; in the new poll, Republicans enjoyed 48%-40% advantage.

It is hard to assess what accounts for that shift but, if it proves a durable trend, the stakes are high. GOP pollster Bill McInturff said that maintaining support among women is critical for Democrats in the midterm elections, or else “a difficult cycle becomes a really terrible cycle for Democrats.”

The poll also found that women’s feelings about the Democratic Party have soured, as 39% expressed positive feelings toward the party, down from 44% in June. And their support for Obama is also eroding — especially on foreign policy, with only 33% approving of his handling of foreign policy compared with 46% a month ago.

Jeff Horwitt, a Democratic pollster who worked with Mr. McInturff to conduct the poll, said those findings invite comparison to the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans won the House majority and exit polls showed the GOP winning a rare victory among women (49%-48%).

“The results among women in this poll should be a cautionary tale for Democrats,” Mr. Horwitt said. “What we don’t know is if this is a trend or a blip.”

COMMENT:  Women haven't done well economically under this administration, and I suspect that many American women no longer identify with a party whose leaders believe women get up every morning thinking about abortion.  The Democratic Party's approach to women's interests is stuck in the sixties.  The nation has moved on.

September 14, 2014       Permalink

SPEAKING TRUTH TO NO POWER – AT 10:41 A.M. ET:  Lindsey Graham is one of the GOP's leading spokesmen on national defense.  His bluntness on the current situation is to be admired.  From the Washington Examiner: 

Sen. Lindsey Graham said President Obama’s plan in Syria “won’t even come close to defeating" the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

"It’s delusional," the South Carolina Republican said.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" just after Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough, Graham said that “when the president and the president’s chief of staff says ‘we mean what we do and we do what we say,' no one believes that anymore.

“There is no way in hell you can form an army on the ground in Syria to kill [the Islamic State] without a substantial American component ...

At least Graham has the guts to say it. 

“They’re pushing a master religion, not a master race like the Nazis … this president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back home.”

COMMENT:  Rather direct, not smooth, entirely true.  One of the striking facts about reaction to Obama's Wednesday night speech is the lack of support and enthusiasm.  The man's credibility is shattered.  He is our Jimmy Carter sundae, with a generous topping of George McGovern.  It is hard to take seriously a man whose first instinct in a crisis is to tell our enemies exactly what he won't do. 

It's also hard to take seriously a man who won't tell the truth about what we face.  FDR, in his first inaugural address, told us that "the only thing we have to fear it fear itself."  He then proceeded to give a blunt, stark picture of the condition of the United States.  It was painful to hear, but Americans knew that at least the man was living in the real world.  Obama is resting in the faculty lounge.

Churchill told England:  "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."  Obama tells America, hey, I can offer Obamacare, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, lower defense budgets, and cash for clunkers.  I guess men lead in different ways.

September 14, 2014       Permalink

CAMERON – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  It strikes me that the most eloquent statements about the crisis in the Mideast are coming from Britain's David Cameron.  He has a backbone.  Physicians are still trying to locate one in our president.  X-ray reports are coming soon.  David Cameron's statement of determination, in the face of the beheading of a British captive by ISIS, bears noting.  From The Guardian: 

"We are a peaceful people. We do not seek out confrontation, but we need to understand we cannot ignore this threat to our security and that to our allies. There is no option of keeping our heads down that would make us safe. The problem would merely get worse, as it has done over recent months, not just for us but for Europe and the rest of the world. We cannot just walk on by if we are to keep this country safe. We have to confront this menace.

"Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil [Isis] and what it stands for. We will do so in a calm and deliberate way, but with an iron determination. We will not do so on our own, but by working closely with our allies, not just the United States and in Europe, but also in the region because this organisation poses a massive threat to the entire Middle East."

Listing five things the government will do, Cameron said the UK would back the Iraqi government and arm the Kurds, work with the UN to mobilise against Isis, support the US air strikes, continue with humanitarian aid and protect UK citizens against terrorism at home.

His remarks did not appear to represent a change of strategy, but he appeared to have increased his rhetoric against Isis, keeping open the option of joining air strikes. UK Tornados are currently helping with surveillance and intelligence-gathering.

Cameron said: "This is not about British combat troops on the ground, it is about working with others to extinguish this terrorist threat. As this strategy intensifies, we are ready to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with this threat and keep our country safe."

The British prime minister is under pressure to join the US military action from some within his party, including former defence secretary Liam Fox. However, other Tory MPs are more reluctant to see Britain get caught up in war in Iraq once more.

COMMENT:  Cameron is in an especially difficult position.  He understands the problem, but Britain has become a welfare state with a vast fifth column of Muslim immigrants.  The political left, including the more leftish "conservatives" have no interest in fighting in the Mideast, no matter how great the threat.  And there is wariness about allying with an America increasingly seen as unreliable.

I wish Cameron had more power, and I wish Britain would give its Ministry of Defence the tools to do a larger job.  Islamic militants look at a West that is lazy, decadent, and run by people who see their main mission as buying votes with social programs.  In the end, it is the United States that must lead, and David Cameron is looking at President Zero and Secretary of State Minus Fifteen.

September 14,  2014     Permalink

SEPTEMBER 13,  2014

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

SICKENING – As many of you know by now, the Islamic State has issued a new video apparently showing the beheading of British citizen David Haines.  Prime Minister David Cameron called the beheading an act of "pure evil," which is true.  The question being asked is why IS is doing everything it can to provoke the civilized world.  It certainly can't welcome more air strikes.  Is it trying to lure ground troops, to inflict as many casualties as possible?  We await more reaction.  We also await decisions by many countries in the region on whether to join our fight against IS.  It should be an easy choice, but confidence in American resolve is low.  Thanks, Barack.

PERDUE PULLS AHEAD IN GEORGIA – One of the most critical Senate races is in Georgia, where Republicans have a chance of losing the seat held by the retiring Saxby Chambliss.  But it looks like the Republican side is firming up.  From The Hill:  "Republican David Perdue leads Democrat Michelle Nunn in a new independent survey of the Georgia Senate race, the second this week to give him the edge.   Perdue takes 45 percent to Nunn’s 41 percent, while libertarian Amanda Swafford takes 6 percent support and another 6 percent remain undecided in the new poll of likely voters, conducted for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Another poll out this week, from SurveyUSA, gave Perdue a 3-point lead. Most polling has shown the race tight, though Democrats remain optimistic Nunn can overcome the red lean of the state and Obama’s deep unpopularity there this fall."  The national trend is Republican.  I've become guardedly optimistic, which for me is a state of ecstasy.

SOCIAL NEWS – I knew you were waiting for this.  From The Politico:  "The love affair that gave new meaning to the Appalachian Trail has hit the skids.  GOP Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina announced on Friday that he and his Argentine fiancee, Maria Belen Chapur, were calling off their engagement and blamed his ongoing legal battles with his ex-wife for the breakup.  The revelation, which caught the political world off-guard, came some five years after Sanford, then South Carolina’s governor, revealed in a tearful press conference that he and Chapur had been having an affair.  The admission came after Sanford reappeared in public after vanishing for several days in June 2009. One of his aides told inquiring reporters that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail; he was actually in Argentina visiting Chapur."  This man used to be mentioned as a potential president.  If he were a Democrat, he still would be.

September 13, 2014       Permalink

WHY DON'T I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS CREW? – AT 12:18 P.M. ET:   You'd think someone in the administration would send out a memo explaining the president's foreign policy to his own Cabinet officers and aides.  No such luck.  Or maybe the copier is broken.  From Fox: 

The White House and Pentagon acknowledged Friday that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State -- contradicting Secretary of State John Kerry and others who a day earlier refused to use that term, prompting criticism from lawmakers that the administration was downplaying the conflict.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters Friday whether or not the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is in fact a war.

“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.

Kirby said “this is not the Iraq War” from a decade ago, “but make no mistake -- we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The comments are a sharp turnaround from how Kerry described the military operation on Thursday. In interviews with CNN and CBS News, Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”

There is a need for tutors here.  Basic English.  Critical writing.  Expanding vocabulary.  There is also a need for parental intervention.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers suggested Kerry’s comments did not square with Obama’s stated goal of defeating the vast terror network.

“It’s hard to find a response to that,” McCain told Fox News on Thursday night, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”

Kerry wasn't the only one having a hard time describing the mission on Thursday. National Security Adviser Susan Rice likewise told CNN on Thursday she wasn't sure whether it should be called a war or a "sustained counterterrorism campaign."

COMMENT:  Inspirational leadership.  I wonder what Lincoln would have done with this bunch.

September 13, 2014        Permalink

THE COST OF LEAKS – AT 11:14 A.M. ET:  We're told regularly by knowledgeable people that government leaks, especially as they involve national defense, have serious consequences.  But rarely do we actually see those consequences directly.  Now we have the chance.  From Fox: 

After the administration released details of the July mission to rescue journalist James Foley and others in Syria, intelligence suggests ISIS dispersed the remaining hostages to multiple locations, making them harder to locate, a military source told Fox News.

In addition, the source added, guard forces around the hostages doubled while widely publicized reporting about the scope of new aerial surveillance in the region caused ISIS to change its pattern of behavior on the ground.

"Any time you (disclose) very highly sensitive tactical information, you're giving away your road map if you will, your strategy," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee receives regular intelligence briefings. "It's very highly damaging to the hostages."

The details about the rescue mission were released by the Defense Department and National Security Council one day after a video was posted online Aug. 19 of Foley’s execution.

The administration said its hand was forced because unnamed reporters had learned about the raid to rescue Foley and other hostages, believed to include Steven Sotloff, who was also later executed by ISIS.

Asked about the ramifications of providing the information in such a public way, Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said Friday it was still the right call.

"We regret it at the time we had to talk about this," Kirby said. "There was absolutely no intention of ever having to talk about that rescue attempt but because of leaks to certain reporters, it forced our hand to try and provide some context to that. So it's not about do I now regret it. We regret it at the time. We still regret that we had to talk about it."

The military source said the disclosures, which included specific details about the mission itself -- including personnel and hardware -- increased the risk for special operations forces in the future.

Two separate sources also told Fox the release of information was damaging because the Foley case was considered "an ongoing mission" after the raid did not locate him and the others near the ISIS stronghold of Raqaa, Syria.

Some Republicans, including McCaul, believe the administration shoulders some of the blame.

"It's all because the administration leaked this information that is highly sensitive,” he said. “And quite frankly is in violation of the law."

COMMENT:  The damage is done.  There is a history of terrible irresponsibility by some journalists in the handling of classified information.  Information that is legally and properly classified is the property of the American people.  It is entrusted to our elected representatives and those whom they appoint.  Those people don't always act wisely or patriotically themselves.  Some leaks come as a result of careerism.  And, yes, some material is illegally or improperly classified to protect the guilty.

The press has a perfect right to try to uncover government secrets that cover up bad stuff.  The press does not have a right to publish classified information that is being kept secret to protect the nation.  We are remarkable in that we rarely if ever prosecute journalists for publishing leaks.  But that could, sadly, change if some real damage is done and can be proved.

September 13, 2014       Permalink

IRAN AND ISIS – AT 10:52 A.M. ET:  One of the key questions about Obama's strategy to defeat the Islamic State is whether it will involve a working alliance with Iran.  It's something to be watched carefully considering the general sloppiness of this administration.  But Kerry is saying no to Iran, at least for today, or most of today.  From The New York Times: 

ANKARA, Turkey — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that “it would not be appropriate” for Iran to attend an international conference on the security crisis in Iraq that is to be held in Paris next week because of what he called the role that Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force is playing in the fighting in neighboring Syria.

France is the host of the Monday meeting, which is to coordinate aid to the new Iraqi government for its fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. French officials have left open the possibility that Iran might attend.

But during a visit here to consult with Turkish officials on the international effort against ISIS, Mr. Kerry said he opposed including Iran.

“Under the circumstances, at this moment in time, it would not be right for any number of reasons,” said Mr. Kerry, who noted that the French had not consulted with him on the question.

COMMENT:  Ah, now we have a question:  What happens if France invites Iran, over Kerry's head?  Does the U.S. go ahead and attend the conference, or take a stand? 

We are currently involved in a critical nuclear negotiation with Iran.  In a way, it may be more important than our confrontation with the Islamic State.  If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, it is a permanent change in the power relationships of the world.  I fear that Obama, who has always wanted a grand alliance with Iran, may cave in to Iran in exchange for Iran's commitment not to interfere with any American operations in Iraq or Syria.  That might make tactical sense, but it would be a strategic blunder of the first magnitude.

September 13,  2014     Permalink