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 26,  2011

LIBYAN POSITION TOUGHENS – AT 11:01 P.M. ET:  Perhaps in reaction to Barack Obama's weakness and NATO's inability to wage effective military action without American leadership, the Libyan regime today toughened its terms.  From Reuters:

TRIPOLI - Muammar Gaddafi is the historical choice of the Libyan people and cannot be moved aside, his government said on Sunday, stepping back from earlier statements offering an election on his future role.

"Muammar Gaddafi is Libya's historical symbol, and he is above all political actions, above all political and tactical games," government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said in a statement issued late on Sunday.

"In this current stage and in the future, Gaddafi is the historical choice which we cannot drop."

"As for the current and future Libya, it is up to the people and the leadership to decide it, and it is not up to the armed groups, nor up to NATO to decide it," the statement said.

Gaddafi, who has run his oil-producing country since coming to power in a military coup in 1969, is under pressure to relinquish power from rebels who rose up against his rule and from a NATO bombing campaign.

But cracks are emerging within the Western alliance too, with some NATO member states anxious about civilian casualties, the cost of the campaign and the fact Gaddafi has not been dislodged after more than three months of air strikes.

Libya's rebel leadership in its eastern stronghold of Benghazi has said it is in indirect contact with Gaddafi's government, raising the possibility of a political settlement to the conflict, which has killed thousands of people.

But the government spokesman said in the statement that talk of a deal was premature.

COMMENT:  Unbelievable, just unbelievable.  Obama initially said that Gaddafi had to go.  It's three months later.  He's still there.  The world watch as Obama delivers a "pullout" speech on Afghanistan, saying America must come home to rebuild our own country.  No wonder the Libyan regime is getting tougher.  They're up against a marshmallow, who decides military policy based on polls.

What a pathetic situation.  Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a lion.  And the Republicans have not been much help.  There is an utter failure of leadership on foreign policy within the Republican Party, and the mush makers, the party's presidential candidates, haven't stepped in to provide that leadership.  The nerve of some of these people to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan.  Reagan wasn't perfect, and he made his share of mistakes, but he had a clear view of America's role in the world, and he pursued it through to the successful end of the Cold War. 

Margaret Thatcher warned us against "going wobbly."  Wobbly?  We're tripping and rolling down the street, politically drunk and directionless.

June 26, 2011      Permalink

GERGEN DISSES OBAMA – AT 11:44 A.M. ET:  The best analysis I've read of Obama's cynical and McGovernish speech on Afghanistan was done by David Gergen, now of CNN.   Gergen, who has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, was clearly repelled by the Obama speech, and let us know it:

There was something deeply unsettling about President Obama's speech on Afghanistan and much of the commentary that surrounded it -- or at least there was to me, as someone who clings to some old-fashioned traditions about U.S. foreign policy.

And...

As someone who has seen a lot of military decisions made in the White House, I am accustomed to presidents paying great heed to the views of their commanders on the ground.

In this case, Petraeus was not just the commander on the ground -- he is one of the very best American generals in modern history, a man who has turned around the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One might think that given his extraordinary success and the great respect in which he is held on Capitol Hill and around the country, Obama would give Petraeus the benefit of the doubt and go with his preferred option.

But that is exactly what the president decided not to do. Instead of a 3,000-5,000 troop withdrawal this year, as Petraeus is understood to have recommended, Obama went for 10,000. And instead of protecting two full seasons of strong American troop presence in Afghanistan, Obama set forth a plan that almost certainly will compromise next season's fighting.

And...

Politics ever intrudes in policy-making. But in foreign policy, the tradition has usually been that a president's role is to figure out what is in the nation's security interest and do that. A strong president tries to rally public opinion behind him, not bend to the latest shift in the winds.

What we are starting to see now in politics is a stampede toward the exits in Afghanistan. The wars are bleeding us dry, it is said -- over $1 trillion over the past 10 years. Never mind that during those same years, a bloated government spent about $40 trillion in total. The public doesn't like Afghanistan anymore, it is said. Never mind that the public soured on Iraq, too, but President George W. Bush (despite his other faults) had the gumption to stick to his guns and order up a surge, and Iraq today is in much better shape than if we had retreated back when.

Bush was a leader.  Obama is not.  And it is obvious.

No doubt, Obama's speech will appeal to many, many Americans. He is right that we do have to engage in more nation-building here at home. But we dare not head for the exits too quickly.

I wish he had listened to Gen. Petraeus.

COMMENT:  Very well put.  But Obama is a politician first.  He is clearly not a man of deep conviction or strategic sense.  He governs from day to day.  Michael Barone compares him to the Peter Sellers character in "Being There."  He's just kind of...there.   What a way to run the United States.

June 26, 2011       Permalink 

NOT IN DUTCH ANYMORE – AT 11:07 A.M. ET:  The mainstream media simply refuses to deal with a phenomenon occurring in Europe – the abandonment of the "multiculturalist" experiment.  There is a limit to what even Europeans can take from the effete elites who have tried to sell them the multiculturalist bill of goods. 

Recently both the British prime minister and German chancellor have openly, and unequivocally, declared multiculturalism a failure.  Now the Netherlands are actually taking action to reverse the failed experiment.  From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

In a landmark turnabout, one of the cornerstones of contemporary liberalism is being rejected by one of the fountainheads of liberalism. The politically correct doctrine of multiculturalism is heading for decline, as Holland, one of the most socially liberal societies on earth, is reversing its former policy of multiculturalism. Soeren Kern, writing for Hudson New York, covers an important story that has gotten almost no notice from the American media, which wishes to pretend that multiculturalism works just fine:

A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: "The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society."

The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups."

The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants to ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.

At least the Dutch have the guts to say it openly, and to take action.  Britain, another country overwhelmed with multiculturalist hooey, is not yet at the action stage, and the old leftists in the Labour Party and at the BBC will mightily resist. 

In America, we need to get a grip on the multiculturalism being shoved down our kids' throats in schools, and, especially, in colleges.  I'm more concerned about the elementary and high schools, where kids are too young to form independent judgments. 

Multiculturalists claim that they simply favor "understanding" of other cultures.  No, that's not what they favor.  They want acceptance of other cultures.  In their world view, all cultures have their own "validity."  And, after all, who are we to question?  All multiculturalists, from what I've observed, are on the political left, and their new pitch is simply a rewording of old leftist doctrine, placing the United States as no better, and probably worse, than the rest of the world. 

This must be soundly rejected.  I'm glad to see a liberal country like the Netherlands taking the lead.  But don't expect much following from California or Massachusetts, or, for that matter, from the Ivy League.

June 26, 2011       Permalink

IOWA STUNNER – AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  A new poll shows Michele Bachmann virtually tying Mitt Romney in Iowa, where the early, and important, Iowa caucuses will be held.

Now, it is true that Bachmann was born in Iowa and has made some recent appearances there.  The significance of the poll lies not only in her rise, but in Romney's weakness.  From Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog:

She hasn't even officially announced her presidential campaign yet, but already Rep. Michele Bachmann is virtually tied with Mitt Romney in the 2012 Iowa caucus polling season.

In the first summer poll, published just minutes ago, the Minnesota congresswoman who was born in Iowa has 22% to Romney's 23% lead in the still developing field of Republican presidential prospects, according to the closely-watched Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.

Business executive and tea party favorite Herman Cain finished well behind with 10% in the poll. No other Republican attracted double-digit support.

The former governor from next door Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, lags at 6%.

Bachmann will appear on two of the Sunday morning talk shows. And then formally launch her run for the Republican nomination Monday in Iowa. After, she'll do the same in New Hampshire and South Carolina, three early states that have historically played major roles in deciding the nominees of both parties.

COMMENT:  I am aware, from information sent to Urgent Agenda by very knowledgeable readers, that Bachmann has a controversial past, and is disliked by many within her own party.  She has a history of being a loose cannon, and is hardly a team player.  The question is whether she can grow beyond some of the mistakes she's made.  So far, a chunk of the Republican electorate seems willing to give her a serious look.  We'll follow.

But do expect to see a press attempt to do to Bachmann what was done to Sarah Palin.  The difference is that Bachmann comes very well prepared, and is a skilled debater.  It should, at minimum, be fun.

UPDATE:  I just had a chance briefly to watch Michele Bachmann interviewed by Bob Schieffer on CBS's "Face the Nation."  Yes, Schieffer is a liberal, and some of his questions were petty, but most were fair.  I would rate Bachmann's performance as only average.  She was articulate, but maddeningly evasive, refusing to directly answer in a number of instances.  This is going to be a problem, as the liberal press dredges up old and sometimes questionable statements.  The same challenge is almost never thrown at Barack Obama.

June 26, 2011     Permalink

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