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 22,  2011

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF SPEAKS – AT 10:40 P.M. ET:  President Obama made one of his rare speeches to the nation on military affairs tonight, telling us his plan for Afghanistan.

It was like Santa Claus in military fatigues.  There was something for everyone.  Obama reminded me of Ed Sullivan, putting on a "really big sheew."  For the left, there was the promise to pull 33,000 American troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer, otherwise known as right before the election.  For the right, there was the promise to get the job done.  Exactly what the job is was somewhat difficult to discern.  From Fox:

President Obama, outlining his vision for ending the war in Afghanistan, vowed Wednesday to withdraw all surge troops by next summer and declared that after a decade of fighting "the tide of war is receding."

Yeah, right.  That's what we said in late '44, just before the Battle of the Bulge.

In a prime-time address from the East Room of the White House, the president assured the nation that the U.S. military will begin its drawdown next month from a "position of strength" following the death of Usama bin Laden. He described that drawdown as "the beginning, but not the end, of our effort to wind down this war" -- a transition he wants complete by 2014.

If you're in a position of strength, Field Marshal Obama, how about pressing your advantage?  When you've got the enemy by the neck, squeeze the neck.  Or is this "position of strength" business just more political rhetoric?

"We have put Al Qaeda on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done," the president said.
As anticipated, the president called for 10,000 troops to be withdrawn by the end of this year. He said the rest of the surge troops, or about 23,000 will be removed by the end of summer in 2012. It is expected that all surge troops will be out of Afghanistan by September next year.

The president, in framing the drawdown, tried to appeal to competing factions on Capitol Hill and elsewhere over the war. To those urging the president to cut the mission short and withdraw forces at a more rapid pace, Obama affirmed that his interest is "nation-building here at home," not in Afghanistan.

"We won't try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely," he said.

But to those concerned the impending withdrawal could leave Kabul ill-equipped to keep the Taliban at bay and extremist elements out, Obama vowed not to let Afghanistan again become a "safe haven" for terrorists.

I'm surprised he didn't sincerely describe his attitude toward dentistry in Afghanistan.  You know, we can't fill every cavity, when we have cavities at home, but we can get most of them.  But no orthodontia.

As could be expected, no one was entirely pleased with the speech, which wasn't exactly ringing with the spirit of America. 

Anti-war Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., scoffed at the president's announcement, saying such a reduction in 2011 would "not even get us back to pre-escalation levels." She suggested withdrawing 50,000 combat troops and is planning several amendments aimed at de-funding the mission.

Lee has been all over the tube, and is the most left-leaning member of Congress.  A Fidelista, she was the only member to vote against military action after the 9-11 attacks.  Strictly party line.  Not a serious person.

Democrats have been joined by Republicans, some Tea Party-aligned, in calling for a swift end to the war. Even some GOP candidates for president have echoed the call.

I wish some of these Republicans would explain how their stand differs from that of the Democratic left. 

But as the president faces bipartisan pressure to get out of Afghanistan, he also faces bipartisan pressure not to leave too quickly.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, expressed concern that the withdrawal plan would put too much of a burden on the remaining troops and "increase risk in a number of areas."

House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday he'd be "concerned about any precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan.

At least these guys have the guts to stand up to temporary trends in public opinion.  We are at war.  Decisions must be made based on good strategy, not straws in the wind.

COMMENT:  We are a nation in peril from a number of threats, both military and economic.  The president simply does not come off as a leader.  He has the image of Jimmy Carter, a deal maker in over his head.  It's widely reported that he developed his Afghanistan plan against the advice of his generals.  That, of course, is hardly a crime.  Lincoln defied his generals as well, to the national good.  And Truman finally tired of the imperial MacArthur, and fired him.  The president is commander-in-chief and must decide independently.

At the same time, Lincoln and Truman were leaders with a clear vision.  But Mr. Obama has rarely sought to try to explain what his goal in Afghanistan actually is, and how his stragegy will achieve it.

I don't know whether this new approach will work, make things better, or make things worse.  I do know that I was less than assured that there is a coherent strategy at work.  Mr. Obama is to be commended for accepting many of George W. Bush's security policies.  Now he is on his own, and no one is particularly confident.s

June 22, 2011     Permalink

MR. GLOBAL WARMING CHARGED IN SUIT – AT 10:17 A.M. ET:  James Hansen, a major NASA executive, has been one of the most passionate advocates of the global warming scare.  You could even call him "Mr. Global Warming."  His perch as head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has given him a kind of credibility that others might not have.

Now, however, a group is claiming that Hansen has profited handsomely from his "advocacy."  From Fox:

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Hansen's office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It's clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization," said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. "The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring."

COMMENT:  Obviously, Hansen is entitled to the presumption of innocence.  However, we have long argued here that money, and lots of it, is fueling a good part of the global-warming debate. 

In his January, 1961, farewell address to the nation, the famous "industrial-military complex" speech, President Eisenhower cautioned about the impact that federal grants could have on the integrity of science.  He was correct.  If federal grants might influence scientific "outcomes," then outside fees and "awards" can have the same effect.  We should be on guard.

June 22, 2011       Permalink 

SNIPPET – AT 10:03 A.M. ET:  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.  A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.

Only in San Francisco would this be made into a racial issue.  The sagging pants guy is black, the lingerie guy is white.  Obvious racism!  Story shows the photo of lingerie guy.  Frankly, he'd look prettier in pink. 

INVESTIGATE,  INVESTIGATE – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  A tragedy of substantial proportions has been narrowly averted at JFK International Airport in New York, and it cries out for an intense, politically incorrect investigation.  Read the story and hear the recording:

Air traffic control tower audio conveys the frightening exchange between the tower at John F. Kennedy International Airport and a Lufthansa flight as the airbus came dangerously close to colliding with another jet.

The incident happened at about 6:30 p.m. Monday when an EgyptAir pilot apparently did not follow air traffic control instructions to hold short of its taxiway and veered into the path of the other plane, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

"Egypt Air 986, a B777, did not follow ATC instructions to hold short of Taxiway D. As a result, air traffic canceled the takeoff clearance for Lufthansa 411, an A346 on Runway 22R," FAA spokesman spokesman Jay Blackman said.

The Lufthansa flight had been cleared for take-off moments before the EgyptAir plane veered into its path, and the pilots had to slam on the brakes to avoid a crash, reports The New York Post.

"Cancel take off! Cancel take-off plans!" shouted an air controller who saw the Munich-bound Lufthansa plane barreling toward the EgyptAir flight.

COMMENT:  Urgent Agenda is not a red-meat site.  We don't scream here.  At the same time, may we cautiously suggest that one factor that must be examined is whether EgyptAir 986 intentionally rolled into the path of the onrushing Lufthansa jet.  The story plainly reports that the EgyptAir crew "did not follow" instructions to stop.  Why didn't it follow those instructions? 

I refer to the strange case of EgyptAir 990, which plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31, 1999, killing all 217 people on board.  Our own National Transportation Safety Board found, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the crash was intentional, the suicidal actions of the first officer, who was flying the plane while the pilot was out of the cockpit.  Both the voice and data recorders were recovered, and NTSB could come to no other conclusion but that intentional action by the first officer caused the crash.  He could be heard on the voice recorder muttering a Muslim prayer.

Egypt, of course, disagreed, blaming the crash on mechanical problems.  But NTSB countered that no mechanical problems showed up on any of the retrieved data, and the mechanical issues theorized by Egyptian "investigators" could easily be overcome.  The American press, to its politically correct disgrace, did not pursue the story very far.

Could this be a repeat?  Could it be a "martyrdom operation"?  I raise the questions but make no charges.  I don't have the facts.  But let's get them, starting with an investigation of the backgrounds of the EgyptAir crew.  And no political correctness. 

June 22, 2011       Permalink

PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH TONIGHT – AT 8:45 P.M. ET:  During the 2008 presidential campaign Mr. Obama became our new "great communicator," with a speaking style that attracted millions.  Since taking office, though, the great communicator has turned into the magnificent mumbler, never quite getting his message across, and sometimes letting major issues like Libya slip by with virtually no explanation at all.

Tonight the president gives himself another chance, as he announces plans for Afghanistan.  Advance word is that he will take a middle course, announcing a drawdown of troops that is too much for his military advisers, too little for his critics on the left.  WaPo has some good insights on this:

President Obama will face a stiff political challenge Wednesday in presenting his plan for a gradual end to the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. His prime-time address must remind a skeptical electorate and a concerned Congress that the country’s longest war remains worth fighting — and funding — for several more years.

Obama’s generals have requested more time to consolidate the gains they say have been made since the president dispatched 33,000 additional U.S. troops to the country last year. The escalation, which angered his party’s antiwar base, followed a months-long strategy review to determine how to salvage a flagging war effort.

Since then, public opinion has turned increasingly against the war, except for a now-diminishing boost in approval after the killing of Osama bin Laden in May.

As he begins the promised withdrawal, Obama’s challenge will be to provide his generals with the resources to wage the war’s final phase while persuading Congress that, at a time of fiscal strain, maintaining most of a $10 billion-a-month war effort is worthwhile.

COMMENT:  A well-stated analysis.  You wonder sometimes what goes on in Obama's mind.  Is he really behind his own policies, or is he going through the motions just to avoid being called an appeaser?  Can he gather up the backbone to praise some of the policies of George W. Bush, which he's continued, or is Bush Derangement Syndrome still alive in the White House? 

This is a critical speech.  The president has chosen to take military action in Libya without so much as giving a speech on it to the American people.   Tonight he will talk of Afghanistan, where we've been for ten years.  Americans are understandably skeptical, and are made more so by the trendy reporting of the leftist press.  Obama must inform and convince, tasks he's failed at in office.

Senator James Webb of Virginia, a Vietnam veteran, has said that for 45 years we've lived a myth in this country – the myth that we lost the Vietnam War.  We never lost a battle in Vietnam.  Vietnam was lost because of cynical news reporting, much of it later shown to be inaccurate, and a loss of faith by the American people.  We pulled the plug on funding our South Vietnamese allies in 1975, an act of dishonor as President Ford said at the time, and sent them to their fate.  We face hard going in Afghanistan.  I can't claim to know the right answers.  But I hope we don't repeat the Vietnam experience, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

June 22, 2011       Permalink

OBAMA SINKING – AT 8:29 A.M. ET:  A new Bloomberg poll shows the president in serious, and worsening, trouble, unless the economy improves:

Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.

By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.

Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate.

“As far as the economy goes, I don’t see that he has delivered on the change that he promised,” said Sharon Ortiz, a 38-year-old independent voter from Hampton, Virginia, who supported Obama in 2008. “The jobs that he promised -- I haven’t seen it.”

At the same time, Americans are skeptical that Republican control of the White House and Congress will be a better prescription for their economic wellbeing. Sixty percent said that any Republican candidate will need to move so far to the right on fiscal and social issues to win their party’s nomination that it will be very hard to back the nominee.

Even so, the intensity among respondents who strongly agreed about judging Obama on his record of job creation was higher -- 45 percent versus 33 percent -- than those worried about a Republican nominee pushed to the right.

COMMENT:  Grim news for Obama, but, once again, we see no great love for the Republicans either.  Too often the GOP becomes gleeful when it sees a negative poll on Obama, not realizing that its own popularity is nothing to brag about. 

We must see the election ahead as difficult, and run as if we're 20 points behind.

June 22,  2011     Permalink

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