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.

JUNE 25,  2011

AN ANNIVERSARY – AT 7:50 P.M. ET:  Some sixty-one years ago today, Communist forces crossed the 38th parallel into South Korea, thus beginning the Korean War.

It is widely believed that one reason for the invasion was a speech delivered by Secretary of State Dean Acheson in January of that year, 1950, in which he laid out areas the United States would defend, and left out South Korea.  The invasion, while conducted by North Korean troops, was supplied by the Soviet Union, which undoubtedly had ultimate control on the Communist side.   

President Truman immediately realized the importance of the invasion, and its potential for destabilizing Asia, and ordered American air and naval support.  That quickly was expanded to include American ground troops.  Because of a Soviet diplomatic blunder at the UN, we were able to get a resolution passed endorsing the use of force to resist the Communist assault.

The decision by Truman to fight was obviously painful and costly.  The United States lost 38,000 men in Korea.  However, South Korea's independence was successfully defended, and the Soviets learned that aggression would be punished.  The war diminished Truman's already weak popularity even further.  When he left office in January of 1953, his approval rating was in the 20s. 

Today Truman is generally regarded as an outstanding president, especially in foreign policy.  He laid the foundation for American resistance to Soviet expansion.  No Jimmy Carter he. 

Korea is called the "forgotten war."  Veterans of the war were almost overlooked at commemorations, in favor of their slightly older comrades from World War II.  Even today most Americans know little about Korea, even though this country fought some of the most bitter battles in its history on Korean soil.  Korea may be "forgotten" in part because it ended in what is widely, but inaccurately, called a stalemate.  In fact, we accomplished our primary military objective in the Korean War, the successful defense of South Korea, and for that we must remember the men of this country, South Korea, and our allies, for making that possible. 

June 25, 2011      Permalink

INTELLECT AND REASON – AT 7:40 P.M. ET:  Ah, what could be more stimulating on a Saturday night than to reflect on the intellectual level of our political conversation.  Example:

SAN FRANCISCO -- The leader of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP said Friday that US Airways engaged in discriminatory conduct by requiring an African American passenger to pull up his pants before boarding a plane, but allowing a white man to board another flight wearing little but women's undergarments.

Do you remember the days when people dressed up to fly?

The Rev. Amos Brown said the group's national leaders would contact airline officials to suggest sensitivity training for executives and ask them to "atone, repent and show their wrongness is understood."

I understand hurt feelings, but maybe some internal work within the community is needed to teach "youths" about decent behavior. 

"The NAACP, in no uncertain terms, contends that this young man was profiled," Brown said in reference to Deshon Marman, the 20-year-old passenger who was asked to lift up his pants by an employee before he boarded a June 15 flight at San Francisco International Airport. "He's been a victim of racial injustice, and US Air owes to him and his mother an apology."

There are people being shot in the streets of Syria, and this is what the complaint is about...pants.

Marman's mother, Donna Doyle, said she did not condone the sagging pants fashion, but was appalled when she learned that the airline had allowed a man to fly in an outfit that exposed his midsection and thighs.

On this she's correct.  Someone made a terrible judgment about allowing a man to fly in nothing but ladies' underwear.  He didn't even look fetching.

"They judged my son by what he was wearing," Doyle said. "There's a double standard here when they don't judge others."

Representatives of US Airways did not return phone calls Friday seeking comment.

COMMENT:  Well, the story originates in San Francisco, so we expect craziness, but this one asks too much of us.

June 25, 2011     Permalink

R.I.P. PETER FALK – AT 12:33 P.M. ET:  Peter Falk, who made "Columbo" into one of the most famous characters in TV and detective-fiction history, has died at 83.

In the early years of our marriage, my wife and I had two favorite television shows, "Mission Impossible" and "Columbo."  "Columbo" had a classic suspense format:  You knew who the killer was early in the show, and the question was how Lieutenant Columbo would solve the crime.  It was the same format used in Alfred Hitchcock's films. 

The writing was often superb.  Peter Falk was a highly educated, well-trained actor who knew that the whole show had to be good, not simply his part.  And the plot had to be good.  But it was Falk's portrayal of Columbo, the disheveled, seemingly confused, low-class, but always incisive detective that made "Columbo" the classic series it became.  Columbo would bring low the often upper-class or professionally powerful villains, always played by fine actors like Ray Milland or Jack Cassidy.  The actors around Falk were as good as he was, and it was to his great credit that he understood how important that was.  A great cast doesn't take away from the star, it makes the star look better.   

"Columbo," with Peter Falk, first appeared regularly in the early 1970s as part of a "wheel," a TV term for a group of separate series that appear under one overall show title, in this case "NBC Mystery Theater."  Other shows in the wheel included "McCloud" and "McMillan and Wife."  "Columbo" reappeared many years later on ABC, but was less successful.

In a way, "Columbo" was a blessing and a curse for Falk, who was a gifted all-around actor.  On the one hand, it made his career and gave him fame most actors can only dream of.  On the other, it was hard to think of Falk being anyone other than Lieutenant Columbo once the series became successful.  It limited his career. 

Peter Falk will be well remembered.  There is no other "Columbo."  Roger Moore could replace Sean Connery as James Bond, and the movies still worked.  "Columbo," without Peter Falk, would be another detective film.

June 25, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET – AT 11:18 A.M. ET:

From ABC News: President Obama today apologized to the family of a Medal of Honor recipient whom he erroneously said was still alive.  On Thursday at Fort Drum, the president told troops from the 10th Mountain Division that he previously "had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”  Wrong. Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was actually killed in Afghanistan on June 21, 2006. In September 2009, President Obama awarded him the Medal of Honor posthumously.

A number of readers have asked how this story turned out.  The president appropriately called the family to apologize.  But this should never have happened in the first place.

OBAMA TO TAKE "LEAD" IN DEBT TALKS – AT 11:01 A.M. ET:   I put the word in quotes because the concept of "lead" hasn't quite taken hold in this administration.  But the president will now lead the debt-limit talks in Washington.   From The Politico:

President Barack Obama signaled on Friday that he is ready to take over the debt-limit negotiations, summoning Senate leaders to the White House next week as the continuing impasse pushes the country closer to a potential default.

Obama will meet separately with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday. The meetings follow the collapse Thursday of talks between Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders.

The sticking point, as expected, is taxes. Democrats argue that any deal to reduce the deficit and raise the country’s borrowing limit must include new revenues. Republicans say they won’t go there.

“The president is willing to make tough choices, but he cannot ask the middle class and seniors to bear all the burden for deficit reduction and to sacrifice while millionaires and billionaires and special interests get off the hook,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday. That’s not “a fair and balanced approach.”

Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the “realities of the situation” are that the House won’t pass any deal that involves raising new revenues, and the package must include budget reforms and spending cuts that exceed the amount of the debt limit increase, which is expected to top $2 trillion.

“If the president and his allies want the debt limit increased, it is only going to happen via a measure that meets these tests.,” Boehner said in a statement. “If the president puts forth such a proposal, he has my word that the House will act on it. But a measure that fails to meet these tests cannot pass the House.”

COMMENT:  Why do I feel the Republicans are falling into a trap?  Why?  Because they always fall into a trap.  We keep stressing here that, despite all the hoopla about Obama's declining poll numbers, the GOP remains decidedly unpopular.  And one reason is the image of a bunch of green-eyeshade guys who take care of their friends, who always seem to have the best cars.

Republicans must demonstrate, in these debt talks, that they're protecting the average American.  They must look for budget cuts that are realistic and sane.  "No new taxes" might be a good media line, but Americans still want things from their government, including a strong national defense, and these items must be paid for.   We are going to have to raise the Social Security retirement age, which hasn't changed since 1935.  We are going to have to reform Medicare, which is popular, but which is riddled with problems and abuse. 

Watch out, Republicans.  For decades Democrats have run on a "they'll take it away from you" platform, and it has often worked.  You'd better come in with some creative ideas that reassure Americans.

June 25, 2011        Permalink

HOW IS HUGO? – AT 10:48 A.M. ET:   A story that has gone under the radar is now gaining greater traction.  What's wrong with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan thug and hero to American leftists and assorted movie "stars"?  From the Miami Herald:

CARACAS — The mystery illness afflicting President Hugo Chávez — confined to a hospital in Havana since 10 June, after an emergency operation to treat a "pelvic abscess" — has brought into sharp focus the absence of any credible replacement for the man his followers like to call the comandante-presidente.

Despite assurances by government leaders and the president's family that he is on the mend and will be home "in 10-12 days," the lack of detailed information about Chávez´s condition has brought inevitable speculation that it could be life-threatening.

An Italian paper is reporting that American intelligence sources say Chavez is in critical condition, but we have no independent confirmation of that. 

Surrounded by "yes-men" and with his ruling Socialist (PSUV) party divided by faction-fighting and short on leadership, Chávez would leave a vacuum that might be impossible to fill.

Maybe the Venezuelan people would get a break, and we'd get rid of a thorn.  Remember that one of Chavez's strongest alliances is with Iran, and there is evidence that Iran is helping Venezuela with military technology.

"For the moment, the president is indispensable," says Nicmer Evans, a political science professor at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. "It's not ideal, but I believe it is a political reality."

According to the official version, Chávez experienced abdominal pain while in a meeting with Cuba's Fidel Castro, and was rushed to hospital. Since then, the only images of him that have emerged have been photographs published by the Cuban newspaper Granma.

Watch.  They'll blame BUSH (!!).

June 25, 2011     Permalink

JUNE 24,  2011

SYRIAN TRAGEDY – AT 11:18 P.M. ET:  Friday is the major day for demonstrations in many Arab countries.  Today was no exception in Syria.  There was bloodshed, and plenty of it, as the regime cracked down once more.  And there was the usual wringing of hands in Western capitals.  From Fox: 

BEIRUT -- Defying government guns, thousands of Syrian protesters poured down city streets and a main highway Friday to press demands for President Bashar Assad's ouster. Security forces opened fire, killing at least 15 people, including two children, activists said.

"Our revolution is strong! Assad has lost legitimacy!" a YouTube video showed protesters chanting in Zabadani, a suburb of Damascus, the Syrian capital.

Syria's streets have become the stage for a test of endurance between a 3-month-old pro-democracy movement, bloodied but resilient, and an iron-fisted but embattled regime. The latest round of protests and killings came as international pressure mounted on Assad.

"We will not stand by while the Syrian regime uses violent repression to silence its own people," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said after the European Union expanded sanctions -- asset freezes and travel bans -- to more members of the Syrian leadership.

Take that, dictators!  Asset freezes!  Travel bans!  That's right, some Syrian leaders will no longer be able to visit Belgium!!!

The Syrian opposition says 1,400 people have been killed as the government has cracked down on a movement demanding an end to four decades of Assad family rule -- a popular uprising renewed each Friday after weekly Muslim prayers.

Five people were killed by security forces' gunfire this Friday in Barzeh, a Damascus district 3 miles from the city center, said the Local Coordination Committees, which track the protests. But Syrian state television offered another version, saying gunmen, otherwise unidentified, had opened fire on security personnel and civilians, killing three civilians and wounding several security force members.

The Syrian regime late Friday said that the demonstrations consisted of 64,000 "thugs."   Lots of thugs, apparently, in Syrian streets.

The Friday protests show no signs of letting up.  At the same time, the regime shows no signs of stepping down.  It's an ongoing tragedy, and the wrist slaps by the West are having no apparent effect.  Indeed, the Western countries, flying the NATO flag, can't even get rid of Gadaffi in Libya.

American leadership is nowhere to be found. 

June 24, 2011     Permalink

SOME LIGHT IN EGYPT – AT 9:58 A.M. ET:  For months we've been reporting on the betrayal of the Egyptian revolution, specifically the rise of Islamic group and the continued denial of basic rights.  Now some of the original revolutionaries are taking a stand, demanding that the promise of the revolution be respected and realized.  From AFP:

Egyptian activists are calling for a massive rally on July 8 to 'save the revolution' that toppled Hosni Mubarak, urging politicians to drop debates on the timing of elections and focus on the basics.

In a Facebook page entitled "The 2nd revolution of anger", activists say the fundamental demands of the uprising -- to protect rights and freedoms -- have not been met, and have instead become clouded by arguments on whether elections or a constitution should come first.

"To all rival political forces debating which should come first, constitution or elections, save your revolution first, save Egypt first. Our revolution is collapsing," the activists said on their Facebook page, which has garnered over 55,000 members.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which took over when mass protests forced Mubarak from power in February, has scheduled parliamentary elections for September.

But an autumn poll is expected to play into the hands of the well entrenched Muslim Brotherhood, prompting calls from secular politicians for a delay to allow new parties to organise themselves.

Some have also called for a new constitution to be drawn up before the election, for fear that the Islamist group will otherwise have too much influence over the drafting of the charter.

But those behind the call for the July 8 protest say the debate is premature, arguing that the priority should be focused on ensuring freedom of expression, the public trial of those found guilty of abuse, and an end to military trials of civilians.

COMMENT:  We wish them well.  They have the right idea, but I fear that the regressive forces have the upper hand.  Egypt is not a country with a democratic tradition.  Its people have never known democracy in their lifetime.  The Muslim Brotherhood started in Egypt in the 1920s and is well organized.  Decades of propaganda and corrupt education have cooked too many minds.

But you never know.  Maybe, and possibly with some discreet outside help, the true revolutionaries will prevail.

June 24, 2011      Permalink

A QUIET MILITARY REVOLT IS HAPPENING – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  We have, properly, civilian control of the military in the United States.  Military officers must follow their orders, or resign in protest. But that doesn't mean they can't have opinions.  It's been clear in the last day that military leaders do not truly endorse Obama's politically driven Afghanistan strategy, and are letting us know it in their own way.

I don't suggest that military men are always right.  McClellan was inadequate during the Civil War and was replaced.  I believe MacArthur was wrong in his desire to expand the Korean War, made his views known, and was fired.  The pompous Westmoreland, in Vietnam, was succeeded by the brilliant Creighton Abrams. 

But the advice of sound military leaders should be weighed carefully by a commander-in-chief with no military knowledge or experience.  Robert Kagan in WaPo, explains what's happening:

Make no mistake...the entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chance that the mission will not succeed. It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.

This may prove a disastrous political calculation, too, however. If the war is going badly in the summer and fall of 2012, it will be because of the decision the president made this week. Everyone will know he did it against the advice of his commanders. Everyone will know he did it for political reasons. So if the war is going badly a year from now, whom do you think the American people will blame? There will still be 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, but as part of a losing effort. Will Americans reward Obama at the polls under those circumstances?

Well put.  But Kagan leaves out one point:  The press, obsessed with the reelection of their hero to a second term, can "adjust" its reporting of the war to fit that need.  And sorry to say, some journalists might be tempted, such is the state of the press and its view of its "responsibilities." 

At the same time, the enemy might lie low in Afghanistan next summer to encourage Obama's pullout.  Then, after Obama's victory at the polls, they could increase the heat, inflict heavy casualties on the remaining Americans, and leave us with Vietnam-style calls to "end the war now" by getting out.

We have no real leadership, which is why we can have no real victory.  But an America, ten years out from 9-11, no longer seems that interested, which is the tragedy.

June 24, 2011       Permalink 

WE ARE HELPING TO FINANCE THIS MADNESS – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  There are plenty of arguments for the federal government to stop funding National Public Radio.  I would humbly suggest that one of the strongest is the quality, even the sanity, of some of NPR's political analysis.  From the Weekly Standard:

The elusive distinction of most ludicrous analysis of Obama's Afghanistan speech should be awarded to NPR for its story, "Obama's Afghan Speech Echoed Lincoln's Talk." The segment was less than a minute-and-a-half, but it was a doozy. Here's the excerpt on NPR's website:

President Obama has studied the life of President Lincoln. In his second inaugural address in 1865, Lincoln spoke of the Civil War, then nearing its end: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in." A section of Obama's speech had a similar rhythm.

The comparable text in Obama's remarks?

With confidence in our cause; with faith in our fellow citizens; and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America...

From here, NPR tries to draw a parallel between Obama's Afghanistan decision and the Civil War. "President Obama's speech brought Lincoln to mind and also highlights an advantage that Lincoln had in 1865," the female radio host says. "Lincoln was speaking near the end of a four-year war. Victory for the Union side was not quite won, but was in sight."

The male host continues: "President Obama spoke last night of a war that has lasted almost a decade. He faces a far more ambiguous task: starting to disengage American troops, while acknowledging that fighting in Afghanistan will continue for years."

So one leader (Lincoln) urged the nation to "strive on to finish the work we are in," shortly before winning the war the nation was fighting. And the other leader (Obama) says, "let us go about the work of extending the promise of America," immediately after calling for America to cut and run from the war the nation is currently fighting. See the parallel? Apparently it's visible only to NPR hosts.

Why of course there's a parallel.  Both Lincoln and Obama lived in Illinois.  Why can't Weekly Standard comprehend that?  That makes them equally great, doesn't it?  Oh, also, the names of the spouses of both men begin with "M," Mary for Lincoln, Michelle for Obama.  Another proof of equal greatness.  Oh yes, and both men had connections with other heartland states – Lincoln was born in Kentucky, and Obama's mother was born in Kansas.

I guess we see things the Weekly Standard doesn't.

June 24, 2011       Permalink

A REMINDER THAT THE BOYS ARE BACK IN TOWN – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Another terror plan stopped, but when will our luck not hold?  From The New York Times:

SEATTLE — Federal law enforcement officials have arrested two men who they say planned to attack a military processing center here using machine guns and grenades.

The men — Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif, also known as Joseph A. Davis, 33, of Seattle, and Walli Mujahidh, also known as Frederick Domingue Jr., 32, of Los Angeles — were arrested late Wednesday and charged with conspiracy to murder federal officers and employees, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and several firearms-related charges.

These Episcopalians.  You gotta watch 'em.

The processing center, called the Military Entrance Processing Station, is used to help process new enlistees. The building is in an industrial area south of downtown. The government said it also houses a federally run day care center.

Both men appeared in court here in a brief initial hearing on Thursday. Neither spoke beyond saying “yes” when asked to confirm that they lacked money to hire a lawyer. The magistrate judge presiding over the hearing appointed public defenders to represent them.

The 38-page criminal complaint filed against the two suggested that they had not made final plans to carry out the alleged plot. They were frustrated, it said, by American war policies and discussed how to make an attack last as long as possible in order to get the most media attention for their actions.

Multiculturalists unite!  Watch the excuses start.  All a perp has to do is use the word "frustrated" and the "it's culturally understandable" gang starts its engines. 

The complaint says federal authorities were informed of the plan in early June by the Seattle police, who had been approached by someone who involved in initial discussions about the attack with Mr. Abdul-Latif. The source, described in the complaint as having an “extremely serious” felony record, soon became a paid informant, helping agents make audio and video recordings of conversations the source had with the two defendants.

At one point, Mr. Abdul-Latif said, according to a government transcription of a recorded conversation: “We’re not only trying to kill people, we’re trying to send a message. We’re trying to get something that’s gonna be on CNN and all over the world.”

COMMENT:  The new Al Qaeda leadership will undoubtedly encourage other plots like this, if only to prove its relevance.  American interest in the war on terror has waned, in part due to economic problems at home.  But I fear that our interest will be sharpened once more, but by a plan that's carried out, and is successful.

June 24, 2011     Permalink