No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War

Max Boot   ...."Was their sacrifice worthwhile? From today’s vantage point, unfortunately, the answer looks increasingly to be “no”—but it did not need to turn out that way. The “surge” of 2007-2008 reduced violence by 90% and set Iraq on track to become a functional democracy. Alas, President Obama did not show much commitment to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have kept American forces past 2011. The result is that US influence in Iraq has plummeted while Iranian influence has soared. Left to his own devices, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is acting in increasingly sectarian fashion that is alienating the Sunnis and allowing Al Qaeda in Iraq—virtually defeated by 2009—to spring back to life. In short, we have managed to squander many of the gains that US troops fought so hard to achieve during the long, bloody years of war."

Now We Know What Obama Meant By 'More Flexibility After The Election '

Joshuapundit reminds us how in 2012 President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Medvedev to tell 'Vladimir' (Putin) that after the election, President Obama would have a 'a lot more flexibility'.
"Today, Pravda-on-the Hudson is reporting on what President Obama meant.
"And I'm sure this is just the beginning.:

NY Times; U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed
"The Obama administration has sought cooperation from Russia on numerous issues, with varying degrees of success. Russia generally has supported the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan and has helped to  restrict Iran’s nuclear program by supporting economic sanctions. But the two countries have been deeply at odds over the war in Syria, and over human rights issues in Russia. Most recently, Mr. Obama has said he would like further reductions in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, something Russia has said it would not consider without settling the dispute over missile defense."

WaPo Smooths the way for Obama's Israel Trip

conservativepapers.com

American Thinker  "The Washington Post runs a lengthy front-page article in its March 18 edition about President Obama's trip to Israel, stressing his need to correct missteps in his first term when he applied one-sided pressure on Israel that spawned tense relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." The article:

For Obama, trip is a chance to repair relations with disappointed Israelis

 "In his article...[Wilson] highlights Obama's mistaken view in his 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world that the Jewish state is rooted in the Holocaust and European persecution -- overlooking biblical ties to the land over a span of four millennia.
....
"Third, while the Bible indeed testifies to ancient Jewish roots, it's by no means the only such evidence. There is a huge trove of archeological proof of Jewish sovereignty in the land dating back a full millennium before the common era. There were about as many Jewish monarchs as there have been U.S. presidents. The Western Wall and Temple Mount stand today as reminders of the First and Second Jewish Temples. And even after the Roman conquest, there was a continuing Jewish presence in the land -- including many ancient Jewish towns -- over the last two millennia. Empirical evidence is just as potent as biblical evidence.
"And these are not the only Wilson missteps. Here are several more:"

NBC's Gregory to Israeli Ambassador: Will Obama Be 'Rock Star' in Israel?  "Oren gave the answer Gregory wanted to hear: "I think it's excellent....[Obama will have] a lot of opportunities to interact with Israelis, particularly Israeli young people....And by the time he takes off from Israel on Friday, I think he's going to be a very, very popular man in the state of Israel.""

I loved Rand Paul's in-your-face, Obama filibuster, but...

Before we remove US influence from the Middle East, we must be aware of the struggle there between radical Islam; "...an insurgency within the Muslim world against which almost all Sunni Muslim states are now fighting."
I cannot see any less danger in the Paulite foreign policy than is evident in Obama's. Perhaps Paul could be Chuck Hagel's smarter brother.

From AEI Critical Threats Project:  Rand Paul's Side Effects  "But Senator Paul’s most important intellectual error lies precisely in his notion of side effects. American support to the anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda. But it was America’s complete and total inaction and disinterest in Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed that movement to establish itself there to such a degree that it could plan and conduct the 9/11 attacks. Inactivity, too, has side effects, and those must be weighed as seriously as the side effects of proposed actions."
 

So much for Obama as the leader of a world power

With North Korea threat looming, US nuclear disarmament has others deciding to 'arm up'   Talk about nuclear proliferation, our status as protector of the free world was supposed to prevent just this from happening. TD

Don't Obama and Hagel understand that the superiority of the U.S. nuclear force has contributed greatly to the prevention of major war and the preservation of peace since World War II?  Read more:

 

DEBKAfile; Tehran: Our commanders now authorized to open fire. Go home, Obama!  " General Jazayeri would not have dismissed the prospect of the US activating its military options with such contempt without authorization from the highest level, i.e. supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  

He was effectively telling the US president that, after pulling American forces out of the Middle East and relegating the handling of the Syrian issue to Moscow, “Mr.Obama” had burned his military options in the Middle East and should go home."

Future presidents will inherit a foreign policy disaster from Obama. This is the natural result of a foreign policy influenced by rock stars, celebrities, and the anti-war left. So much for giving peace a chance. We appear to be reliving the path taken by the antiwar British in the 1920-1930's who continued to demand disarmament while enemies spoke of conquest as they built up their military machine. Their actions nearly cost Britain her very existence. TD

Obama's Israel Trip: One Step Forward After Three Steps Back " Visiting Israel sends an important signal of U.S. solidarity, one significant step forward. Yet Obama has also taken three major steps backward with the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, John Kerry as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan as CIA Director."

 

Obama Approval Dismal in Israel, Plans to Directly Address Israeli Public

"In the world of Barack Obama, talking directly to people ensures that they will like him and do what he wants. So, for his trip to Israel, Obama is eschewing speaking at the Knesset, as his two predecessors did, and instead plans to speak at a convention center where he can directly address the Israeli people.

"There’s one small problem. Israelis don’t like him. They really don’t like him."

Jerusalem Post; Obama will want to persuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bite the bullet and leave preventing Iran from producing a bomb to the US.  "Netanyahu, however, will be mindful of past US failures to stop North Korea, Pakistan and India from going nuclear, and insist that Israel cannot take the chance that America might fail again, especially given the fact that the US can live with a nuclear Iran whereas Israel can’t. In other words, Netanyahu will be apprehensive about allowing Iran to enter a zone of immunity against Israeli attack, leaving Israel totally reliant on American military action, which may not happen." 

The New Affirmative Action; Making diversity the goal of preferences doesn’t eliminate bias.

Victor Davis Hanson 

"Sometime in the first years of the new millennium, “global warming” evolved into “climate change.” Amid growing controversies over the planet’s past temperatures, Al Gore and other activists understood that human-induced “climate change” could explain almost any weather extremity — droughts or floods, temperatures too hot or too cold, hurricanes and tornadoes — better than “global warming” could.

"Similar verbal gymnastics have gradually turned “affirmative action” into “diversity” — a word ambiguous enough to avoid the innate contradictions of a liberal society affirming the illiberal granting of racial preferences."....

Tolerance brigade calls Ben Carson ‘token,’ ‘Uncle Tom’ and ‘Oreo’ after CPAC speech

Video from Dr. Benjamin Carson: Media Bullies 'Beat on' Those Who Don't Toe the Line and 'Suppress Freedom of Speech'

It will do little to point these things out to "progressives"; it appears to me that they are not capable of feeling shame.

Twitchy  "This morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Dr. Ben Carson mentioned the “nastygrams” he received after he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. He said some of his oh-so-tolerant admirers lobbed the N-word at him for “insulting” President Obama.
"“When did we reach a point where you have to have a certain philosophy because of the color of your skin?” he asked?
"Even after being called out, some particularly nasty trolls just couldn’t help themselves."
A few of the tweets from Obama voters:

Artur Davis is gonna fight Ben Carson back stage. There can only be one negro that conservatives love. He demands that mantle.

They gave this Negro, Ben Carson a standing ovation. Smh.

 Dr. Ben Carson is the Negro du jour

 Dr Ben Carson is too dumb to know that his fans like him because he's a n----r that dislikes the president.

If you go to this source, you will see the tweets are much more pithy than those you see here.

obamacartoon

Alan Caruba: Americans will Curse Obama for Obamacare

Warning Signs

...."As the realities and costs of the Affordable Healthcare Act—Obamacare—kick in, when he leaves office, he will be remembered for inflicting pain and suffering on Americans.

"As the various aspects of Obamacare become active, the impact on everyone will reduce their income and increase their costs. ....

"The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. At 2,000-plus pages, it has now been joined by thousands of pages more to implement it. It is a regulatory nightmare."

 

As Americans address paying their 2012 income taxes, here are some of the new taxes that will afflict some or all of them at some point.
# A tax on medical devices. This will cover “everything from surgical instruments and bedpans to wheelchairs and crutches. Even pacemakers and artificial hips and knees are taxes.” If Obamacare is not repealed, it will rake in $20 billion over the next decade.

# A tax on health insurance. Beginning in 2014, there will be a $60 billion tax on health insurance that will be felt in higher premiums. A typical family of four will have to spend nearly $1,000 a year.

# A tax on drugs. If you think prescription drugs are expensive now, some drug makers have already begun to raise prices. 

# A tax on medical savings accounts. You will no longer be able to use these tax-free accounts to purchase over-the-counter drugs, forcing people to purchase drugs such as Claritin, aspirin or Advil at a cost that is 30% higher for a middle-class family. Contributions to such accounts will be capped at $2,500.

# A tax on becoming ill. Today’s tax law allows you to deduct medical expenses up to 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. Obamacare increases this to 10%, making your future deductions smaller. It became effective this year for people under 65 years of age and goes into effect in 2017 for those 65 and older. Obama will be out of office by then. He won’t care even if you do.

mypetjawa

# Additional taxes. The Medicare payroll tax will increase by almost one-third for some people, rising from 2.9% today to 3.8& on wages over $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a couple. An additional 3.8% Medical payroll tax will be levied on investment income (capital gains, interest, and dividend income) at some income levels. The “rich” will pay more, but in effect this impacts most of the middle class. 

Stooge pictures and emphases added. TW

Obama's trip to Israel

The President needs to keep this in mind:
Americans’ (Relative) Sympathy for Israel at a 22-Year High  "People unfriendly to Israel used to say that Israel was only popular in the U.S. because pro-Israel forces had managed to stifle debate by preventing mainstream sources from publishing critical articles. That turns out not to be true. From the New York Times op-ed page to a best-seller by Walt and Mearsheimer to Joe Klein’s columns to campus “Israel Apartheid Wees” to dozens and dozens of blogs, it’s actually pretty hard for anyone at all interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid reading strong criticism of Israel, even if they tried. One would certainly be hard-pressed to argue that debate is being “stifled.” "

edenpoliticalcartoons

The Times of Israel wants to know, Why on earth is Obama going to Israel?  "Some have suggested that Obama needs to reassure Israel, to hold their hands and tell them that the US-Israeli relationship is special. This suggests that Obama cares about Israeli feelings... and that Israelis might be thus comforted by his presence. But the record of bad relations between Obama and Netanyahu is too long, and the fact that Obama is on record saying that Israelis don’t know what is best for them, whereas he does, has mitigated whatever good vibrations he might spread now."

Haaretz; The diplomatic failure in Obama's visit  "This is not the first state visit a U.S. president has made to Israel, but Barack Obama is the first president who has refused to address the Knesset. It could be that in doing so, he is setting a precedent that could affect the Knesset's standing and Israel's position in the world."...  More on this here:
Obama’s Knesset boycott   "If Obama wants to be heard by the Israeli public, he should not bypass the Knesset, as this will be regarded by many as an insult." That much is all you need to know; you have to pay if you want to read the rest.

 

 

Before we fall in love with Rand Paul, how about his foreign policy?

His father, Ron Paul's policy of "Be nice to Iran and they will be nice to us" sounds too low-information to be taken seriously. Perhaps that is why so many on the left liked Paul Sr. and that alone makes him seem too Bill Ayers-ish for me. TW

 

Rand Paul’s confused foreign policy speech  "I do not believe Rand Paul is anti-Israel or subscribes to the conspiracy theories of his father. But this was a naive and, in some ways, silly speech. It is not going to help him in his quest to attain political acceptability as a presidential candidate."

But on the other hand; Rand Paul’s foreign policy speech: No to isolationism, no to neoconservatism, yes to containment
"But distinguishing himself from GOP hawks is only half the goal here; the other half, as is often true lately, is distinguishing himself from his pop. Which explains why the speech begins with an indictment of radical Islam, including this pointed comment:" Paul here makes too much of McCain's jest that we stay in Iraq for 100 years. That's something Obama would do.

Jennifer Rubin: Time for hawks to wake up  "They now face a Rand Paul problem because they did not construct a sound, reasonable national security policy that would endure over time. In short, they lost the public and now they are panicked that Paul may win the party and the country over."
Emphasis in the original.

Rand Paul is no Ron Paul, and he'll go to Israel to prove it "Support for Israel’s right to exist doesn’t stop at rhetorical backing for its right to defend itself but would necessitate a recalibration of much of Paul’s foreign policy. Would he support or even involve America in a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities? Would he militarily defend Israel if it was attacked? If the answer is “yes” to either question, then Rand Paul will find himself to be a man without a movement."

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy  "As long as he opposes the hawks in the party on any one thing, whether it is on foreign aid or military spending or something else, they will continue to distrust him. "

Two photos added: 76 Years Since the Hindenburg Disaster

An aerial view of the wreckage of the Hindenburg airship near the hangar at the Naval Air station in Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 7, 1937.

The Hindenburg’s Interior: Passenger Decks

Passenger cabin

The Atlantic  (From 2012)   "Last Sunday, May 6, marked the 75th anniversary of the 1937 Hindenburg disaster. The massive German airship caught fire while attempting to land near Lakehurst, New Jersey, killing 35 people aboard, plus one ground crew member. Of the 97 passengers and crew members on board, 62 managed to survive. The horrifying incident was captured by reporters and photographers and replayed on radio broadcasts, in newsprint, and on newsreels. News of the disaster led to a public loss of confidence in airship travel, ending an era. The 245 m (803 f) Hindenburg used flammable hydrogen for lift, which incinerated the airship in a massive fireball, but the actual cause of the initial fire remains unknown. Gathered here are images of the Hindenburg's first successful year of transatlantic travel, and of its tragic ending 75 years ago. 

(Also, be sure to see Recovered Letters Reveal the Lost History of the Hindenburg on Atlantic Video.) [34 photos]"

Hat tip to Walt Stier, Santa Maria, CA

The Atlantic

The crash site today

 411mania

Google

Many more posts on history, culture, politics and media at the Tunnel Wall blog

The Cruz-Feinstein kerfuffle

Cruz and Feinstein in blow up over the Second Amendment
Liberals "accuse you of trying to trap them, or, as in the case of Senator Diane Feinstein who was asked a question by Senator Ted Cruz about applying her interpretation of the Second Amendment to the First Amendment, they whine about being lectured, or as Nancy Pelosi dismissively said when asked if the individual Obamacare mandate was constitutional replied "Are you serious?"

Here's the transcript. 

The GOP Could Learn A Lot From Ted Cruz

Legal Insurrection: Ann Coulter makes that point about DiFi’s response to Ted Cruz, which we featured yesterday  "... Offended should not be an acceptable answer. 
"But, Offended is accepted as an answer virtually everywhere, particularly on campuses, unless the person offended is a religious Christian, in which case Offended is both the goal of the question and one of the few instances in which Offended is not an acceptable answer."
 

Dianne Feinstein: “I Felt Patronized” By Ted Cruz…  Video

 Dianne Feinstein is the Sixth-Grade Poster Child for Incompetency   "Instead of answering Sen. Cruz’s questions, Feinstein threw out several red herrings. A red herring is a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue. When you don’t like the way a cross examination is going, employ the red herring to dodge the question."
 

Ted Cruz At CPAC: “God Bless Bloggers,” Toasts Andrew Breitbart…