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 21,  2011

AND GOOD LUCK TO HIM – AT 10:18 P.M. ET:  We normally don't deal with stories like this, but this one is special.   Navy Captain (and astronaut) Mark Kelly, husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has announced his retirement from the Navy in order to be with his wife, who suffered a severe gunshot wound to the head earlier this year.

Commander Mark Kelly, the dashing astronaut who piloted the final mission for space shuttle Endeavour and stood by the bedside of his recovering congresswoman wife, Gabrielle Giffords, announced his retirement from the Navy and NASA over Facebook Tuesday morning.

"Today, I am humbled to announce that after 25 years of service to our country, I am retiring from the United States Navy and leaving NASA, effective Oct. 1," Kelly wrote on his official Facebook page.

Kelly's wife Giffords underwent surgery in May to repair her skull, following a shooting that almost killed her in January -- an incident that has clearly been weighing on the mind of the pilot and astronaut.

"Gabrielle is working hard every day on her mission of recovery. I want to be by her side. Stepping aside from my work in the Navy and at NASA will allow me to be with her and with my two daughters," Kelly wrote. "I love them all very much and there is no doubt that we will move forward together."

COMMENT:  These are very classy people, and both are true public servants.  They have handled their ordeal with great dignity.  It must be very painful for a Navy captain and astronaut to give up his career, but Captain Kelly has undoubtedly made this decision after great thought.  He is a role model who can teach a nation that "husband and father" are pretty important titles, too.

Editor's note:  The story quoted above describes Kelly inaccurately as "Commander Mark Kelly."  He was the commander of the shuttle Endeavour, but his rank is captain, USN, and he should be referred to as Captain Kelly.

June 21, 2011       Permalink 

OUTRAGEOUS – AT 10:06 P.M. ET:  We reported last night on the arrival of first lady Michelle Obama in South Africa, and we pointed out that the country is a mess, a nightmare of crime and violence, rarely discussed in the trendy press of the West.

Now the government of South Africa is demonstrating just how clownish the place is.  The president of the nation is snubbing America's first lady, the wife of this country's first black president:

South Africa President Jacob Zuma has snubbed the visiting Michelle Obama by sending his prisons minister to meet the first lady at the airport and failing to see her during her three-day stay.

Mr Zuma was out of the country for the first day of Mrs Obama's second solo trip abroad on Tuesday and although he returned on Monday night, aides said he was "not available" to meet her.

Instead, he arranged for Corrective Services Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to greet her on her arrival in Pretoria on Monday night, and one of his three wives, Nompumelelo Ntuli-Zuma, to meet her briefly on Tuesday.

Great way to make friends in America.  For Mrs. Obama, this is an important trip.

...it coincides with a cooling in relations between South Africa and the United States. Last week, President Jacob Zuma issued a sharp riposte to an appeal by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to African leaders to help remove Libya's Col Muammar Gaddafi.

"We strongly believe that the (UN Security Council) resolution is being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation," he told parliament the day after Mrs Clinton's speech.

COMMENT:  What a jerk.  He's advertising his government's vulgar association with Gaddafi, a thug and murderer.  We had hopes for South Africa when apartheid ended, but those hopes are fading.

June 21, 2011      Permalink

GOOD STRATEGY – AT 11:10 A.M. ET:  I realize that we have some thoughtful readers who believe Michele Bachmann is a bit of a ditz, and I myself have winced at some of her more "imaginative" statements.  Her political history contains some problematical moments.

But I have to concede that she is showing growth.  Her performance in last week's debate was surprisingly good, although I'd like to hear her get down to specifics of policy.

I detected a smart change in her strategy last week that sets her apart from othe Republican candidates – an emphasis on compassion, and the inclusion, by name, of groups not normally associated with the GOP.  Last week she accused President Obama of showing coldness toward the plight of the unemployed.  Smart.  There is no reason why Republicans have to come off looking like an army of people in green eyeshades.  Maybe Michele is working the "compassionate woman" angle, which is entirely legitimate, and connecting with those in trouble makes good sense in any event.

Now she is properly attacking Obama on another front:

(CNSNews.com) - Pointing to double-digit unemployment rates among African Americans and Hispanics, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) said on Friday that President Barack Obama “has failed” both these communities.

“This president has failed the Hispanic community. He has failed the African-American community,” said Bachmann. “He has failed us all when it comes to jobs.”

Bachmann, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2012, made the remarks at the “Republican Leadership Conference” held in New Orleans over the weekend.

COMMENT:  When you mention groups by name, you wind up in the newspapers and broadcast outlets that serve those groups.  It is a good move on Bachmann's part.  Too often the GOP has abandoned communities that have not been supportive in the past.  But how can you win votes in those communities if you ignore them? 

Bachmann has a long way to go, but she shows improvement all the time.  She does her homework, is a good debater,  and works the details.  If she continues on this course, she can have a very bright future, perhaps on one end of a national ticket.

June 21, 2011       Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 10:10 A.M. ET:  Agree or disagree, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal has written a clear, hard-hitting piece defining "credibility" as the missing link in American foreign policy.  Stephens, an unabashed hawk, believes that we must restore America's credibility if we want our foreign policy to succeed again:

The GOP ought to have a different watchword for America and the world: credibility. The credibility of our promises, and of our threats. The credibility of the dollar, and of our debt. The credibility of our arms, and of our willingness, when decision is made, to use them to decisive effect. The Roman epigram that has become the unofficial motto of the Marine Corps sums it up nicely: "No better friend; no worse enemy."

And...

It is not credible to insist that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable"—and then announce plans for the containment of a nuclear Iran. It is not credible to surge 30,000 troops to Afghanistan—and then provide the Taliban with a date certain for the beginning of our withdrawal. It is not credible to intervene in Libya on humanitarian grounds—while promising that Moammar Gadhafi is not a target (falsely, as it would turn out).

It is not credible to assert that the New Start treaty with Russia does nothing to limit U.S. missile defenses—only to be flatly contradicted on the point by the Russian foreign minister at the ceremony exchanging ratification documents.

And...

The U.S. would be credible if it desisted from pouring more diplomatic wine into the punctured jar that is the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process." Or if it took serious steps to help overthrow the Assad regime, thereby depriving Iran of its principal ally in the Arab world and its link to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or if it abandoned its nascent efforts to negotiate with the Taliban and instead published the names of Taliban leaders on the drone-strike list. Or if it dramatically increased the size of the U.S. Navy to counter China's naval buildup. Or if it desisted from all rhetoric suggesting that it can solve its budget woes by further cutting Pentagon spending.

This list, too, goes on. In foreign policy, as in so much else in life, credibility is the currency nations use to achieve results without resort to more drastic means. President Obama, spendthrift in so many ways, has been particularly wasteful here. A Republican foreign policy would be a sustained attempt to recover this squandered capital.

COMMENT:  Note the last line.  We hope that's what a Republican foreign policy will be.  But, if you read my post on isolationism today you know that there is real cause for concern.  The party is increasingly fractured.  It may be tempted to follow the latest trends in public opinion. Our weak economy works against a strong foreign policy. 

We are already handing the next generation a huge bill for our profligacy.  It would be tragic to add to that a huge war because we haven't maintained our strength. 

June 21, 2011       Permalink

SLICK JONNY? – AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  Jon Huntsman, super-wealthy former governor of Utah, and former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, announces for president today, picturing himself as the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.  From The Politico:

JERSEY CITY, NJ — Tuesday morning will be the beginning of a new morning in America, Jon Huntsman will tell a crowd gathered at Liberty State Park on Tuesday.

With the Statute of Liberty as a backdrop, Huntsman will introduce himself as “a governor, a businessman, and a diplomat,” as he outlines a campaign positioned against the attacks of the other GOP contenders looking to take on his former boss, Barack Obama.

“I don’t think you need to run down anyone’s reputation to run for president,” Huntsman will say, according to prepared remarks. “I respect my fellow Republican candidates. And I respect the president. He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love.”

Oh please.  Huntsman knows he has a huge problem in trying to explain to Republicans how he could have been Obama's ambassador to a major country, never voiced any differences with the man, but is now running against him.  Had Huntsman resigned in protest against Obama, that would have been different.  But he didn't. 

“But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who’s the better American,” Huntsman will say.

Full of Reagan echoes, Huntsman’s speech — set for the same spot where Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 general election campaign — will reach for the same sweeping optimism.

Reagan launched that campaign “in an earlier time of trouble and worry,” Huntsman says. “He assured us we could ‘make America great again,’ and under his leadership we did. I stand in his shadow as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty.”

Jonny, you may be a decent guy, but you're no Ronnie.  Reagan, by the time he ran for president, had already built up a body of beliefs, speeches, articles, and personal history that Huntsman lacks.  I think it's actually bad form for him to try to mimic Reagan, even to the point of using the same Statue of Libery backdrop that Reagan used.

And yet, you never know what voters will decide.  Huntsman can pour money into his campaign.  He is moderate and may appeal to independents.  We'll watch him.  But the comparison with Reagan will strike many as a bit presumptuous.

June 21, 2011       Permalink 

ISOLATIONISM – AT 8:56 A.M. ET:  This is the new buzz word, and you'll be hearing it much more often.  And for good reason.

Isolationism, the idea that, in foreign policy, we should retrench, "mind our own business" and otherwise follow George Washington's admonition to "avoid foreign entanglements" is becoming popular in some American ranks again.  Polls show the public is tired of our military intervention in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, although I'd love to see how the questions in those polls are phrased.  Some Republican candidates are taking a "bring the boys home" approach, although with some caution.  Mitt Romney seemed to be taking that line during last week's debate, but later clarified his stand to add some caution against premature or rash withdrawals.

Okay, what's the bottom line here?  Well, George Washington was a bright guy, but he lived before the age of ICBM's, flying machines, automatic weapons and even electricity.  Sorry, George, but your world isn't ours. 

Isolationism failed miserably in the 1930s, and led directly to the Second World War, as Axis powers saw a clear field ahead of them for their aggression and barbarity.

We flirted with isolationism after Vietnam, as George McGovern shouted "Come home America."  So-called "anti-war" elements took charge of the Democratic Party, gutted defense, gutted our intelligence services, with no gain for the United States.  It took Ronald Reagan to correct the course.  Reagan was not always steady in his internationalist outlook – our commitment of troops to Lebanon and then their quick withdrawal after the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut were blown up in 1983 – were not brilliant strokes.  But Reagan's overall approach, building American defense capability and making clear that we had definite red lines, worked well and led to the end of the Cold War.

Now liberal websites are gleeful in ridiculing the defense wing of the Republican Party, led by John McCain, claiming it's losing influence.  Suddenly, some leading Republicans, who'd spent their careers disparaging the War Powers Act, are embracing it, trying to restrict President Obama's role in Libya.

It is clearly not isolationism to question Obama's Libya policy, which has been botched from the start.  Nor is it isolationism to question our course in Afghanistan.  But it is isolationism to ask for a general retrenchment for America around the world.  Yes, we should bring some troops home from Europe and possibly even Korea.  But what I'm hearing from some Republicans is a rejection of the traditional Republican stance – a strong America, second to none, and willing to assume our proper role as the world's superpower.

It was the Democratic Party that turned against national defense in the late 60s.  Fortunately, the Republicans were there to counter that dangerous shift.  The war on terror is far from over, and will require a twilight struggle for decades to come.  It is disheartening to think that some Republicans are going McGovern on us, to take advantage of a temporary change in public opinion.  Will we wake up one morning to find that Republicans never meant it at all?  That they're frauds? 

And, incredibly, will we find that, in the 2012 election campaign, the hawk will be....Barack Obama?  Would you have thought that six months ago?

We have some thinking to do, don't we?

June 21, 2011     Permalink

JUNE 20,  2011

ANOTHER PATHETIC COUNTRY – AT 10:01 P.M. ET:  First lady Michelle Obama has just arrived in South Africa with her two daughters. 

Now, I can well understand the emotional attachment of an African-American to South Africa, considering the country's apartheid past.  What I cannot understand is the silence of the mainstream media about conditions in that country today.  Simply stated, South Africa is a disgrace.  Its government is a gang of old creeps, Marxists and racial hustlers who never met a dictatorship they didn't like.  Indeed, in a report by Freedom House about the extent to which human rights plays a role in the foreign policies of a number of democracies, South Africa came out dead last. 

Internally, the country is a horror story.  It has one of the highest crime rates in the world, and one of the highest rates of sexual violence against women.  Not much talk about that in the trendy Western press.  South Africa, to too many journalists, is all about the battle over apartheid.  What has happened since apartheid is of no great interest.

From AFP:

Relations between the United States and South Africa have suffered a number of diplomatic strains this year.  In March, South Africa allowed exiled Haitian ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to return home, despite a personal appeal from President Obama to keep him in South Africa until after a presidential run-off election that Washington feared he would destabilise.

President Zuma has also lashed out at the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya, which Washington supports.

South Africa has been close to Gadaffi.  In fact, the only government in the Mideast it seems to find problematical is the government of Israel.

Obama has a packed schedule that includes a safari in Botswana, a visit with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu in Cape Town and a trip to the memorial for Hector Pieterson -- a 12-year-old student killed during the anti-apartheid Soweto uprising in 1976.

Tutu was active in the fight against apartheid, but that was more than a quarter of a century ago.  What's he done since to improve his country?  The world wonders.

COMMENT:  I hope the first lady has a good time, but we really must get beyond discussions on South Africa that begin and end with apartheid.  There's a country there today, and it's sinking.  People are living behind gated walls just to survive.  Anyone interested?

June 20, 2011       Permalink

IT'S ABOUT TIME – AT 9:48 P.M. ET:  Afghan President Hamid Karzai presides over a corrupt regime in a mess of a country.

(CNSNews.com) – The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan warned Sunday that the American people are growing weary of being viewed as “occupiers” by the leaders of a country where so much American blood has been spilled.

Karl Eikenberry’s candid and impassioned remarks came a day after President Hamid Karzai in a televised speech accused U.S.-led foreign troops of being in the country “for their own national interests.”

On Sunday, Karzai met with Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi – on the first ever official visit by Iran’s top defense official – and the two discussed problems arising from “the presence of foreign forces” in Afghanistan, according to reports in Iranian state media. Last week Karzai held talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of a Eurasian summit in Kazakhstan, and similar sentiments were expressed.

And...

Without mentioning Karzai by name, Eikenberry took aim Sunday at the increasingly harsh anti-coalition rhetoric emanating from the president, calling it “hurtful and inappropriate.” The ambassador, who will leave his post over the summer, made the remarks at the end of a speech on the future of U.S.-Afghan relations, delivered to several hundred students at Herat University.

“When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost in terms of lives and treasure, when they hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they’re only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people, my people in turn are filled with confusion and they grow weary of our effort here,” Eikenberry said.

COMMENT:  It's about time an American official took on Karzai, an absolute ingrate and egotist.  Early in the war on terror he was a darling of the college commencement-address circuit in the U.S.  He basked in the glow.  Now he meets with reps of the Iranian thug regime, which murders its own people in the streets, and lectures us.

President Obama will announce this week preliminary plans for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.  Our effort there still requires important levels of forces, but no one can expect the American people to be very enthusiastic if the president of the nation we're helping behaves the way Karzai has.

June 20, 2011       Permalink

TERRIFIC – AT 9:30 A.M. ET:  Speaking of symbolism – see our post on the Pledge of Allegiance just below – some Arab women are now asking help for a symbolic right...the right to drive a car.  I think this is terrific, using a small issue to illustrate a larger purpose, the drive for human rights in the very freedom-starved Arab and Muslim worlds.   And these women are, very appropriately, putting the heat on Western women, who should be doing much more:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A coalition of Saudi activists is urging the West's top women diplomats to publicly support a campaign by women in Saudi Arabia to win the right to drive.

The group, Saudi Women for Driving, says it sent letters Monday to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton appealing for statements backing the effort to end the male-only driving rules in the Western-allied kingdom.

Right on, ladies.  It's about time some Western feminists stood up for you.

About 40 Saudi women got behind the wheel Friday, saying they were beginning a campaign to lift the restrictions in the ultraconservative Muslim country. No arrests were reported.

The Saudi activists say the Saudi campaign is inspired by the Arab uprisings and deserves high-level Western backing.

Not only should Western women get involved, but how about this:  A campaign in the West to raise money to help buy cars for Arab women who are breaking this barrier.  This small campaign can lead to larger miracles.  I want to see a Saudi woman get out on the side of the road and change a flat tire.  I want to see those old imams faint. 

Come on, Hillary.  Let's roll.  Literally.

June 20, 2011      Permalink 

ABSOLUTELY INSUFFICIENT – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  A bizarre incident occurred on network TV over the weekend, and we should be demanding some answers.  NBC Sports opened a golf tournament with the Pledge of Allegiance, but edited out "under God."

Now, the issue before the house is not whether you think "under God" should have been inserted in the Pledge in 1954 – reasonable people can differ.  The issue is a network editing out the phrase and apparently thinking no one would notice.  NBC has apologized, but we are far from satisifed.  From Fox:

BETHESDA, Md. -- NBC issued an on-air apology Sunday for omitting the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance during its coverage of golf's U.S. Open.

The words were edited out of a clip of children reciting the oath -- a move immediately noted by viewers, who took to Twitter and various blogs to voice their anger, the Huffington Post reported.

In a statement during the broadcast, NBC commentator Dan Hicks said, "We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open Championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation's capital for the third time.

"Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."

COMMENT:  Oh, come on.  I always love that phrase, "...apologize to those of you who were offended..."  Apparently, NBC isn't apologizing to anyone else, or to the nation as a whole.  NBC should have said, "We apologize to the nation, and we promise a full internal investigation to examine how this happened, why, and how such outrageous actions can be prevented in the future.  We'll give you the results."

Yes, the Pledge is only words, but it has enormous symbolism.  How in the world could anyone at a major network change it?  Why?  What does this tell us about the culture in broadcast journalism?  And why didn't anyone at NBC notice?

I hope someone, like Fox News, gets on this and demands more from NBC.  From a small incident we can learn a great deal. 

June 20, 2011       Permalink

SMART GUYS – AT 8:42 A.M. ET:  I keep stressing, and will continue to stress, the quality of President Obama's political team.  These guys do politics, and they do it well.  We see a perfect example today.  Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, is about to announce his candidacy.  Although he is little known, he has loads of cash and an attractive style.  In the TV age, you can become known quickly.

But Huntsman has an oddity in his past:  He served as ambassador to China in the Obama administration.  Now he's running against the president he served, something I don't recall ever happening in my lifetime.  And the Obamans are playing Hutsman brilliantly.  From The Politico:

David Axelrod says that if Jon Huntsman disagreed with President Barack Obama's economic policy, he never voiced it during his time in the administration.

A senior strategist to the president's reelection campaign, Axelrod said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Huntsman's recent criticism of Obama's "failed" economic policy is "in conflict with what he communicated to us in 2009."

Axelrod recalled talking with Huntsman, then the U.S. ambassador to China, during a trip to Shanghai in late 2009. "If he had suggestions on the economy, he had an excellent opportunity to suggest them then, where we were all together in China," Axelrod said of Huntsman.

"What has changed is not his view of the economy, but his view of his own chances to, perhaps, win the [Republican presidential] nomination," Axelrod said. "I understand. That's politics. He's a politician, and he sees an opportunity."

The president's political strategist also recalled some of Huntsman's praise for Obama during that 2009 meeting.

"He was encouraging on health care. He was encouraging on the whole range of issues," Axelrod said. "He was a little quizzical about what was going on in his own party. And you got the strong sense that he was going to wait until 2016 for the storm to blow over."

COMMENT:  That is brilliant politics at work.  Axelrod is showing what will be done to Huntsman if he gets the GOP nod.  He will be completely compromised by his work for Obama.  Basically, Axelrod is calling Huntsman, in a kind of elegant way, an opportunistic two-timer who can't be trusted.

I don't think Huntsman will get the nomination, largely because he worked for Obama.  But Alexrod is showing us how good the Obamans are at defining an opponent.  Don't sell these boys short.

June 20, 2011       Permalink

THIS WEEK – AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We enter a new week, with summer beginning tomorrow.  But there will be no summer doldrums.   I don't recall, in recent times, a summer period more filled with such serious challenges to this nation.

First, the economy.  The economy of the United States is not only statistically precarious, it's psychologically precarious, and the latter point may be the most important.  We just sense around us a discouragement, a belief that it isn't working, that we're in for it.  That is not a quality feeling.  It is not a feeling that leads consumers to consume or companies to hire.  There is a sense of a lack of leadership, stemming from Obama's aloof style.  And Obama is getting precious little enthusiasm for reelection, even from his own party.

Second, the Mideast.  It is in flames, and yet you'd never know it from the almost business-as-usual attitude in the White House.  However these revolutions turn out, they will affect us here in America, in part because the Mideast sits atop the world's largest oil supply, and in part because political change may bring, not democracy, but more fanatical and Islamist regimes than the region has now.

Third, Afghanistan.  The calls for quick withdrawal grow louder.  But how we handle a drawdown in that pathetic country will send a message to the world:  Is America oriented toward victory and success, or simply washing its hands of an unpopular problem.

Fourth, the choice of a president.  We'll be watching the GOP carefully, and don't be surprised by surprises.  You can sense, each day, a growing public awareness of the race for the nomination.  As the economy sputters, the GOP nomination is worth more.  This is going to be a serious fight because of a growing recognition that 2012 will feature one of the most important presidential elections in our recent history.  The Republican Party is clearly split into factions, and the candidate who can bring those factions together in his or her tent will be the nominee.

Fifth, the sense of history.  No doubt Obama's election was historic.  It broke a barrier.  Now Americans must painfully ask whether the experiment – putting an inexperienced, vague man in office based largely on his symbolism – has failed.  This will be a painful question for many Americans, but it's a question that must be answered, for the nation's well-being and even survival.

We'll be covering all these issues at Urgent Agenda.  It never gets dull.

June 20, 2011     Permalink