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.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

We are halfway through our subscription drive.  Subscriptions are our lifeblood.  If you like what you are reading, and would like us to continue and even expand our work, please consider subscribing.  I think we provide a unique service, tailored to the tastes of a particular audience.  And I hope we do it with a touch of lightness.  We appreciate the number of readers who've told us they make Urgent Agenda their first read every day.  And we appreciate the fact that our retention rate for subscribers is well over 90%, which sends a message.

You can subscribe by going to the column on the right, just opposite these words.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda alive. You also get The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mailed publication.  At The Angel's Corner you can join our Forum, which has become the most popular feature at Urgent Agenda.  Write on anything you wish.   Did you know that some Angel's Corner pieces are used in college classrooms?  Others are published around the internet. 

And, at The Angel's Corner, we give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed, after intensive review, on those who meet the very highest standards of absurdity and leftist immaturity.  Be the first to find out who has been so blessed.  But please, don't send candy or cakes to try to get us to name your favorite.  We have morals here.
   
If you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and strange phone calls.  But we cannot guarantee that you'll still have friends.

Subscribe today. A credit card will do it. Or, we can send you a mail address, if you prefer.

FRIDAY,  JUNE 11,  2010

HMM, THIS IS INTERESTING – FROM THE TIMES OF LONDON – AT 9:49 P.M. ET:  Will Israel strike Iran when it becomes clear that sanctions are failing and the Iranians are getting their nukes?  This may provide a hint:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

COMMENT:  Makes sense to me.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  There has always been some behind-the-scenes cooperation between some Arab governments and Israel when they shared interests.

The key here is whether President Obama, who sometimes tries to be more Islamic than the Muslims, will give his assent.  And yet, if you look at a map, Israeli aircraft could fly to the south, then east over Saudi Arabia, and into Iran, without passing over any areas where the U.S. has air control. 

I think we may have an interesting year coming up.

June 11, 2010      Permalink

THE BP BASH – AT 8:45 P.M. ET:  We're no great fans of BP here.  They've made mistakes, are probably negligent, and their image is zero.  But BP bashing, while popular in left field, is of no value right now.  Will someone please tell Nancy Pelosi?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her sharpest rebuke yet of the oil industry, said Friday that BP should not make dividend payments to stockholders until those affected by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are made “whole.”

“I’m saying that they should not be paying dividends until they make these people whole and make a better effort to do it in a timely fashion,” Pelosi told reporters. “These people are coming to us and saying ‘I have to take out a loan,’ . . . . which I can ill-afford to repay because BP is not, you know, is not paying. BP has the money, it made $17 billion last year. They went up, what, 12 points on the stock market yesterday?”

BP’s paying dividends to stock holders has grown controversial in recent days, as Gulf shore residents have complained about the speed in which the company has responded to loss of income claims.

The Times of London reported Friday that BP was preparing to defer payment of its next dividend and instead put the money in an escrow account until the full scale of the company’s liabilities from the spill can be determined.

COMMENT:  Oh, grow up, Nancy.  You're right to demand that BP pay up, and it should move faster to settle legitimate claims.  But wrecking the company, or depriving shareholders, including many British pensioners, of their dividends will accomplish what? 

The idea is to demand BP go all out to stop that gusher, help people now, and leave the lawsuits for later.  But the left can never resist bashing the oil guys.

And, by the way, maybe Congress should start looking into the slow response of the Obama White House, and whether the feds have resources that are yet unused.  Apparently, there is some valuable foreign equipment that can be brought in, but accepting it runs afoul of something called the Jones Act, passed in the 1920s.  Requires a waiver, but the unions are against the waiver.   So once again we have a situation where union demands may trump effective action.  Gee, where have we seen that before?

Obama's leadership on the spill has been laughable.  But I'm sure Hollywood won't make a movie about it.

June 11, 2010     Permalink

WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST, CONT'D – AT 8:37 P.M. ET:  We try to remind readers periodically what we are up against in the war on terror, or, if you're an Obaman, the war on man-caused disasters which can be explained by socio-economic deprivation.  From Fox:

A 7-year-old boy was murdered by the Taliban in an apparent act of retribution this week. Afghan officials said that the child was accused of spying for U.S. and NATO forces and hanged from a tree in southern Afghanistan.

Daoud Ahmadi, the spokesman for the provincial governor of Helmand, said that the killing happened days after the boy's grandfather, Abdul Woodod Alokozai, spoke out against militants in their home village.

Ahmadi said: "His grandfather is a tribal elder in the village and the village is under the control of the Taliban. His grandfather said some good things about the government and he formed a small group of people to stand against the Taliban. That's why the Taliban killed his grandson in revenge."

Shamsuddin Khan Faryie, an elder in the boy's home village of Heratiyan, said that the victim was seized as he played in his garden. He was found hanged from a nearby tree.

The killing of children to punish their families has echoes of Western mafia-style violence. Under Pashtunwali, the ancient honor code of the Pashtuns, it is likely to provoke more vendettas and blood-letting.

Don't you just love the attempt to link this to "Western mafia-style violence"?  You see, all cultures are basically alike, dearies.  And we all have our own validity.

Yuch.

We're fighting the good fight, even if the president doesn't want to be part of it.

June 11, 2010      Permalink

REQUIRED READING – AT 10:22 A.M. ET:  If there's one piece you should read today, or this weekend, it's this one.  Going under the delightful title, ""Goo-Goo Genocidaires:  The Blood is Dripping From Their Hands," Walter Russell Mead, a sane academician, dissects so-called "peace" movements, and finds they have nothing to do with peace:

Of all the mass murderers, genocidaires and enablers of the twentieth century, one group of collaborators does not get its fair share of condemnation and moral loathing. Unfortunately Americans have never really come to terms with the terrible things they did, we have never really named and shamed them, and we have never diagnosed and exposed the bad ideas that led to some of America’s most fateful and costly blunders. Until we do, our society is at risk of repeating these errors.

The people I have in mind are the ‘goo-goo genocidaires,’ the willfully blind reformers, civil society activists, clergy, students and others whose foolishness and ignorance was a necessary condition for tens of millions of deaths in the last hundred years. Unreflective, self-righteous ‘activists’ thought that to espouse peace was the same thing as to create or safeguard it. As a result, tens of millions died. Unless this kind of thinking is exposed and repudiated, it is likely to lead to as many or more deaths in the 21st.

We all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; this turns out to be particularly true when it comes to the road to foreign policy hell. Over the years good people or at least people who wanted to be good or thought they were, motivated by what seemed to them to be the highest of motives, have taken political stands and made policy proposals that helped mass murderers gain power in their own countries and launch themselves on international careers of conquest and mayhem. At other times, fortunately, they’ve failed to change policy; still, they wasted a lot of people’s time and made life significantly more difficult for those whose plans to help the world ultimately worked.

COMMENT:  Well written and well argued.  We have railed here against phrases like "anti-war activist" or "peace activist," both of which are willfully deceptive.  No "anti-war" group or "peace" group ever achieved peace, except the kind of peace that led to tragedy and genocide.

The greatest peace activist in the last century has been the American soldier. 

Read the Mead piece.  There'll be a quiz.

June 11, 2010     Permalink 

SOME GOOD NEWS FOR REPUBLICANS – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone has analyzed Tuesday's primary results, and finds a silver lining for the GOP:

Five of the states that voted June 8 have party registration, and in each registered Democrats significantly outnumber registered Republicans. Yet in three of the five it appears that more people voted in the Republican than in the Democratic primary and in the two others it appears that almost as many did. One reason is that in many of these states Republicans had more seriously contested races than Democrats did.

Barone examines turnout state by state, and concludes:

The bottom line: Robust Republican turnout in South Carolina, Nevada and California leaves Republicans in relatively strong position in the balance of enthusiasm in those states in comparison with where they were in the 2006 and 2008 cycles. And the robust Republican turnout in New Jersey might say something positive about the strength of feeling on the policies of first-year Governor Chris Christie.

COMMENT:  I've always believed that the party that has more fun is in the best position to win.  At one time, decades ago, that clearly was the Democratic Party.  No more.  Today's Democrats are grim-faced, uptight, and fearful.  It's the Republicans who turn out because the GOP has become much more interesting.

As William Bennett put it yesterday, in a speech before our Hudson New York lunch, this is not your father's Republican Party.  Women are up front, minorities run as candidates, not minorities, and there is more concern about basic American principles like democracy and personal freedom than in the opposition party, which is starting to look like the Republicans of the 1930s. 

Let the good times roll.

June 11, 2010     Permalink

OUR DISGRACE – AT 9:02 A.M. ET:  It's a sad anniversary in Iran.  A year ago the democracy protest movement ignited in Tehran.  A year later, it is moribund.  But why?  The Washington Post, in an incomplete piece, examines:

TEHRAN -- When office clerks, housewives, students and other urban Iranians took to the streets a year ago to protest what they said was massive election fraud by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they hailed the birth of a leaderless popular movement that embodied their aspirations for a more open society...

...Using word of mouth, social media and cellphone text messages, Iranians challenged the government in a way long unimaginable in the 30-year-old Islamic republic -- or, for that matter, during the centuries of monarchy that preceded it.

And then this:

Foreign governments, including the United States, lauded the advent of a major grass-roots movement, unprecedented in the Middle East.

Not quite.  It took the president of the United States, Mr. Hope and Change, four days to get to a microphone to say a few pleasant things about the Iranian democracy movement.  With no American leadership, foreign support for the Iranian freedom fighters was limited, to put it mildly.

Now, a year later, the masses that made up the movement have disappeared from the streets of Tehran. Dozens of protesters have been killed in clashes with determined government forces; hundreds have been arrested and put on trial. Faced with overwhelming force, without guidance or organization, the dissidents these days cannot agree on their goals, much less mount a significant challenge to the country's leadership.

Okay, that may be true.  But revolutionary movements have debates all the time.  The real issue here is that the absence of foreign support for democracy, led by an indifferent Barack Obama, was critical to crushing the movement.  Indeed, Obama isn't even mentioned in the story, a serious omission, given the role he refused to play.

We had a chance at regime change.  We blew that chance.

When President Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," it appalled the "sophisticates" in the American foreign-policy establishment.  But in the prisons of Siberia, we later learned, the president's message was tapped out on pipes, and inspired resistance movements.  Barack Obama has proved himself to be a cynical Chicago politician who, at a critical moment, faltered in promoting the best of the American ideal.

June 11, 2010     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:47 A.M. ET:  From Tunku Varadarajan, in the Washington Examiner, examining the cases of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and GOP candidate for governor in South Carolina, Nikky Haley:

Why has no Indian-American liberal risen as high in the Democratic ranks as Jindal and Haley have done in the GOP? Could it be that because Democrats put more of an emphasis on identity politics, an Indian-American Democrat would have to contend with other ethnic constituencies that might think that it’s “their turn” first? And once you go down the “identity” route, your success as a politician tends to rest more on the weight of numbers—the size of your ethnic constituency, or your racial voting bloc—than on the weight of your ideas. The most striking thing about Jindal and Haley’s success is not that they are Indian-American politicians who have triumphed in conservative Southern states, but that they are conservative Southern politicians who just happen to be Indian American.

COMMENT:  Ah yes, identity politics.  Strange, isn't it, that for minorities it's the Republican Party in which the American dream is being truly played out?  In the Democratic Party, as Varadarajan points out, you have to wait your turn, behind other groups who have first claim. 

Lesson for Dems?  I doubt it.  They stopped learning and developing years ago, which is why I joined the millions, like Ronald Reagan, who left.

June 11, 2010      Permalink

GOOD NEWS – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  Many have been following this story, so it's great to report some good news, from Fox:

CANBERRA, Australia -- A 16-year-old sailor on a round-the-world journey was adrift in the frigid southern Indian Ocean on Friday as rescue boats headed toward her yacht, damaged by 30-foot waves that knocked out her communications and prompted her to set off a distress signal.

After a tense 20 hours of silence, a search plane launched from Australia's west coast made radio contact with Abby Sunderland on Friday.

The boat's mast was broken -- ruining satellite phone reception -- and was dragging with the sail in the ocean, said search coordinator Mick Kinley, acting chief of the Australia Maritime Safety Authority that chartered a commercial jet for the search.

But the keel was intact, the yacht was not taking on water and Abby was equipped for the conditions, he said.

"The aircraft (crew) spoke to her. They told her help was on the way and she sounds like she's in good health," Kinley told reporters in Canberra.

COMMENT:  Once again Australia steps up and does the job.  It would have been nice, by the way, had the AP mentioned up front that Abby is an American, but we have to wait many paragraphs for that.  She's a gutsy American girl.  This voyage may be over, but I have the feeling she'll try again.

June 11,  2010     Permalink

THURSDAY,  JUNE 10,  2010

OBAMA IS NOT GALLUPING – AT 9:03 P.M. ET:  President Obama has hit his lowest point in the Gallup Poll.

Presidential approval stands at only 44%, while 48% disapprove.  The fact is that the general trend for the president is downward. 

Scott Rasmussen reports that his survey finds 46% approval for the president, close to the Gallup number, while 53% disapprove.  Rasmussen polls among likely voters, which we consider to be the more accurate method.

Rasmussen also reports that only 26% strongly approve of the president, while 43% strongly disapprove. 

These are miserable numbers for this stage in Mr. Obama's presidency.  True, they can be improved because any president can improve his numbers.  But there must be no joy at the White House.

I'm convinced that part of Mr. Obama's problem is that people simply don't like him as much as they once did.  He's become abrasive and at times a bit nasty.  Obamalove is getting stale. 

Does this point to a Republican victory in November?  Well, probably.  But victory is not enough.  It must be a decisive victory, decisive enough to end Mr. Obama's legislative program.  That is the GOP challenge.

June 10, 2010      Permalink

DESPICABLE, DISGRACEFUL – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  You wonder how teachers like this got their jobs.  From Fox News:

Standing in front of a wall-to-wall mural featuring a who's who of revolutionaries, including Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and boldly displaying the motto Patria o Muerte, Venceremos!!! (Fatherland or Death, We Shall Overcome!!!), a group of teachers, students, parents and community activists in the Los Angeles Unified School District gathered last month for an unusual field trip — to Arizona, to protest that state's controversial immigration law.

A video posted on YouTube shows LA social studies teacher Jose Lara interviewing teachers and students on May 28 at the headquarters of an organization calling for a Mexican revolution on U.S. soil. Soon after he shot the video, many in the group left for an overnight "freedom ride" to Phoenix to protest what Lara tells the camera is a "racist and outrageous" law.

COMMENT:  Can you imagine what goes on in this guy's classroom?  Should we ask why it's allowed?

This man is an insult to Hispanic-Americans, who, as the adage goes, are first at the recruiting station in time of war.  He's just old Marxist trash in a pseudo-Hispanic package.

I recently received a note from a truly distinguished Hispanic-American, Silvio Canto Jr., whose website I recommend.  It read: "#2 son will be attending officer candidate school with the US Marines this summer!"

That's the real story of Hispanic-Americans.

June 10, 2010      Permalink

IF YOU CAN FIGURE THIS OUT, CONTACT US – AT 7:18 P.M. ET:  From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told U.S. Jewish leaders on Wednesday that he would never deny Jews their right to the land of Israel, according to participants of the two-hour roundtable discussion.

And...

During that interview, Abbas also lauded Barack Obama's administration and its efforts to bring forth a two-state solution.

"This is the first time we hear from a U.S. administration talking about that the solution of a two-state solution is in the vital interest of the United States," said Abbas.

"The two-state solution is no longer only a Palestinian interest or an Israeli interest or a Middle East interest, but it is also an American interest."

From the Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Authority president Mahmud Abbas said Thursday he feared the concept of a two-state solution to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians "is beginning to erode," AFP reported.

"I would like to express concern that the situation is very difficult," he was quoted as saying in remarks at a Washington think tank.

COMMENT:  Normally, Arab leaders who come to Washington wait until they return to the Mideast to display the second of their two faces.  They say one thing in English in Washington, an entirely different thing in Arabic to their "brothers."

Abbas apparently isn't that patient.  He did the two-faced thing, in English, right here.  The man's got guts.  Round of applause from the Helen Thomas Appreciation Society.

June 10, 2010     Permalink

WHAT AMERICANS THINK – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  Andrew Malcolm, at the L.A. Times's excellent Top of the Ticket blog, presents some recent findings on how Americans see things.  Some of the results seem to reflect what we've been seeing, but others are bit surprising:

Gallup finds terrorism remains the top concern. But it has now been joined by -- Hello, big Democratic spenders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- the exploding enormity of the federal deficits. And here's the midterm election year political problem for both of these Democrats: Republicans are viewed as better at handling both of those concerns.

ABC News finds voter frustration at the boiling point. The number of Americans approving of ...

... their local House member has dropped below 50% for the first time since Bill Clinton's first midterm elections in 1994.

Anybody remember which party named Republican seized control of both houses of Congress that year for the first time in four decades? Voter approval of Congress is now at 26%, down 18 points since the same Democrats took majority control of both houses in 2007.

The even better news for Republicans is that the GOP has increased its lead on the so-called generic congressional ballot this month. That is, which party's candidate are you most likely to vote for on Nov. 2? Republicans now lead Democrats by nine points, 44-35, Rasmussen Reports reports.

And...

The Harris Poll has an interesting new survey out on how 2,503 Americans rate 16 elements of life in their country. Large majorities give positive ratings to America's science and technology (75%), its Constitution (70%), quality of life (66%) and even its overpriced colleges and universities (65%).

The more education you have, the higher you rate these categories.

I'm a little surprised at how high colleges and universities rank, as I believe they will be the targets of some pretty intense scrutiny in coming years as people start asking what their kids are getting for $45,000 a year.  Maybe overburdened parents were underrepresented in the Harris survey.

However, the health care system (33%), public schools (32%) and the economic system (28%) don't get rated very well.

I suspect the health care figure reflects a lot of negative talk related to the Obamacare debate, rather than reality.  There are problems with health care, some serious, but the system actually functions quite well for the great majority of Americans. 

Incumbent Alert: You'll never guess which sector gets the worst rating from Americans: Political (23%).

I guess we didn't get the change we can believe in.

June 10, 2010      Permalink

LAND OF LINCOLN – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:  The Politico runs an excellent analysis of Blanche Lincoln's victory in the Arkansas Senate primary runoff.  It's likely that Lincoln will still be defeated by our side in November, but her primary victory gives some valuable lessons in political survival, if only temporary:

The takeaway? While the political currents may seem daunting and unnavigable, there is a safe passage this year. And despite the presence of once-in-a-generation political forces, deep hostility toward office-holders and a playing field that’s tilted against the status quo, some traditional tenets of electioneering still apply.

And...

Lincoln's overarching theme on the stump was the Natural State, and everything she talked about reverted back to Arkansas, whether the issue was the impact of card check legislation or farm bill spending.

"Whatever the administration is about, if it's good for Arkansas I'll be supportive of it. If it's not, I'm going to try to change it and make it better for Arkansas," Lincoln told reporters a few hours before the polls closed Tuesday.

Observing from afar, Florida Democratic strategist Steve Schale said Lincoln's ad campaign oozed genuineness and served to reconnect her to voters who are wary of anything tied to Washington.

"Sen. Lincoln took ownership of her own message, localized her race and spoke directly to the people of Arkansas about their frustration. She didn't run away from the anger," he said.

And...

Don’t forget who brought you to the dance. And choose wisely among the surrogates who can speak to them.

While President Barack Obama proved helpful by cutting radio ads for Lincoln, it was former President Clinton who showed up on the eve of Memorial Day weekend to gin up African American enthusiasm.

The former president and longtime Arkansas governor crystallized a message that would've been awkward for Obama to convey: Don't let outside forces strong-arm our senator for casting votes that reflect our state's centrist sensibilities.

As a result, Lincoln got a boost from African-American voters while Halter suffered from his play to the left.

Lincoln's opponent was the creation of forces outside Arkansas – the leftist Moveon.org, and public-employee unions out to punish Lincoln for her supposed disloyalty to their marching orders.  Resentment of outsiders is a classic theme in politics, and it played out in Arkansas.

Lincoln's victory should give us some heart that there are still some in the Democratic Party who will resist the leftist push of the party's coastal elites.  Americans are pragmatists, idealists rather than ideologists.  The attempt to make the Democratic Party into a junior version of European socialist parties is dangerous and wrongheaded. 

We'll still favor John Boozman, Lincoln's opponent in the general election, but we congratulate her for standing up to the leftist, isolationist crowd, and winning.  May it happen more often.

We also, by the way, congratulate Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, a national-defense Democrat, who stood up to a challenge from the hard left and won renomination.  The California Democratic Party is a crazy institution in need of medication, and Harman provided several spoonfuls on Tuesday night.  She proved there is sanity even among some California Democrats, although not much.

June 10, 2010    Permalink

NIKKI AS SARAH? – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  I watched an interview with Nikki Haley last night.  As you know, she came out on top in the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in South Carolina, but must now win the runoff, which should be easy.

Haley is a phenomenon, whose race to the top was helped mightily by an endorsement from Sarah Palin and by a sympathy vote from voters angered by charges that she had been unfaithful to her husband.

I found Haley an articulate spokeswoman for conservative causes.  Like Sarah Palin, she has taken on the GOP establishment on ideological matters, which has not made her loved among the good 'ol boys.  She is far more popular among voters than among politicians.  That's fine in elections, but she'll have to mend fences if she wants to govern effectively.

Is she Palinesque?  Well, not quite.  Haley is a serious person, states her position clearly, but lacks Sarah's charm.  She's got to lighten up a bit and avoid appearing angry.  I think she can do it.  She's run a masterful campaign, and is someone to watch.  Now relax, Nikki, relax.

June 10, 2010      Permalink

BIT OF PROGRESS – AT 8:15 A.M. ET:  We give credit where it's due here.  In a surprise announcement, Russia said it was putting on hold the sale of the S-300 air-defense system to Iran.  That is one of the most sophisticated systems of its kind in the world.  Iranian possession would have checkmated an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program, and made an American strike more problematical.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Russia will put an arms deal it had been working on with Iran on hold following a new round of UN sanctions, reported Russian news agency Interfax Thursday.

The deal, which had Moscow selling Iran the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system, was put on hold despite the fact that Russian officials previously had said that sanctions would not prevent them from completing the deal.

That is good news.  We await details.  Of course, we'd also like to know if Russia got something for this.  But stripping Iran of the possibility of the S-300 might have a sobering effect on Tehran...unless the mullahs can get an advanced system from a third party, like North Korea. 

June 10, 2010     Permalink

WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST – AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  Sadly, we need reminders occasionally about just what the war in Afghanistan is about.  From Fox:

NADAHAN VILLAGE, Afghanistan -- A homicide bomb ripped through a wedding party for a family with ties to police in the Taliban's heartland in Afghanistan, killing at least 40 people and wounding dozens more, officials said Thursday.

The Taliban denied carrying out the attack, but strong suspicion fell on the insurgent group because of previous attacks and killings of people seen as allied with the government or Afghan security forces.

It's been reported that a number of children were killed.

Questions:  What kind of people do this?  And what kind of "outrage" will the UN and other international organizations express?

We hope the president condescends to make a statement, and makes Americans understand anew that the people who engage in this kind of wanton slaughter have us in their sights, as they did on 9/11. 

The Obama administration may have dropped the term "war on terror," but that's what it is.

June 10, 2010     Permalink