Definition of the #Democrat Party

Heh, seen on Twitter last night:

Democrats are leeches! pic.twitter.com/IIeq0D6jAb #Tcot @peddoc63 @DrMartyFox @hankishtwit @JamesNathaniel7 @TheDemocrats @Morning_Joe

— Janie Johnson (@jjauthor) June 9, 2014

Dodgers, #Angels Have Mixed Reaction to Tobacco After Death of Tony Gwynn

I guess Tony Gwynn attributed his cancer to smokeless tobacco.

I thought "What the heck?" when I heard he'd passed. He was only 54.

In any case, at the Los Angeles Times:

For many players, the use of smokeless tobacco becomes entwined with playing the game. It becomes difficult to imagine baseball without it.

I can see that. But times are changing.

In any case, read it all at that link.

The World Ignites on #Obama’s Watch

From Walter Russell Mead, at the American Interest:

As Islamist jihadis like Boko Haram murder and kidnap their way across Nigeria and Mali in pursuit of what they somehow convince themselves is a noble purpose, as Iraq and Syria writhe in the flames of an insurgency gone into hyperdrive, as the Taliban licks its chops over the future of Afghanistan, and as the smoke rises over Karachi’s airport, Washington is still trying to pretend that the global war on terror is a thing of the past.

RTWT.

John Kerry's Proposal to Work with Iran Is 'Preposterous'

At National Review:

Bill O'Reilly: 'Enormous Dereliction of Duty' if Obama Fails to Bomb #Iraq

Another great talking points memo:

Kenya Terrorist Attack 'Most Sophisticated Seen of Its Kind'

More on the Nairobi al-Shabaab attack, via Telegraph UK:



PREVIOUSLY: "Al-Shabaab Massacres Dozens in Nairobi! U.S Marines Stationed Atop Embassy!"

Hobby Lobby Critics Demonize Belief

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The legal and political world is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case with bated breath. The court’s ruling will determine whether the Obama administration’s efforts to restrict religious freedom or the plaintiffs’ belief that faith may be practiced in the public square will prevail. The arguments over the merits of the case in which the government’s attempt to impose a contraception and abortion drug mandate on private businesses as well as religious institutions have been endlessly rehearsed as a sidebar to the general debate about ObamaCare. But, as I noted earlier this year, rather than confining the debate to the question of constitutional rights, critics of the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius have done their best to portray the business owners who seek to strike down the government mandate as not merely wrong but a threat to liberty.

In order to do this, the administration and its cheering section in the mainstream media have sought to transform the debate from one that centers on government using its power to force people of faith to choose between their religion and their business to the dubious notion that dissenters from the mandate wish to impose their beliefs on others. This is a false premise since even if the owners of Hobby Lobby win, its employees won’t be prevented from obtaining birth control or abortion-inducing drugs. The only thing that will change is whether their Christian employers will be forced to pay for them.

But efforts to demonize Hobby Lobby are not confined to these specious arguments. As today’s feature in Politico on the Green family shows, the goal of the liberal critics of Hobby Lobby isn’t so much to draw the line on religious freedom as it is to depict their foes as crazy religious extremists who want to transform America into a “Christian nation.” That this is an unfair distortion of their intent as well as the point of the court case goes without saying. But the fact that mainstream publications feel free to mock the Greens in this manner tells us exactly why the plaintiffs’ fears about restrictions on religious freedom may be justified.

In Politico’s telling, the Greens are religious fanatics who not only are willing to conduct their businesses along religious lines, including closing their chain of hobby stores on Sunday, but also want to promote their beliefs to others. The Greens may wind up investing hundreds of millions of their vast fortune to the building of a Bible museum in Washington D.C. The also want to promote Bible study and ... funding a textbook and curriculum about religious studies they’d like to see be adopted by school systems. According to Politico, these efforts are stirring concern in the ranks of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and other liberal organs....

The attacks on the Greens illustrate the intolerance of openly expressed faith that is at the core of the mandate the administration is seeking to enforce. The Greens are no threat to the liberty of non-believers who need not visit their bible museum nor read the religious materials they publish.

Keep reading.

Six in 10 Americans Dissatisfied with Obama Administration Handling of 2012 #Benghazi Attack

Yes, because it was all just some unhinged GOP whipped up frenzy for the base, or something.

At CNN, "CNN/ORC Poll: Majority dissatisfied with handling of Benghazi."

Just 37 percent are satisfied with the administration's handling of Benghazi, and:

Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the administration has generally been dishonest in providing information about Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack.

“That may be one reason why overall dissatisfaction with the White House has gone from 50% in 2012 to 60% now,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

There'll be more on this. An ABC News poll out last week found that 58 percent of Americans thought the White House "covered up what it knows" about. Benghazi.

VIDEO: U.S.-Made Stinger Missiles Likely in Hands of #ISIS Jihadists in Iraq

Following-up from previously, "Sources: #ISIS Jihadists Likely Have U.S.-Made Stinger Missiles."

Only America Can Prevent a Disaster in #Iraq

From the former American Regent in Iraq, L. Paul Bremmer, at the Wall Street Journal:

America's core interest remains a stable, united and democratic Iraq. But American regional interests are broader. At stake now is the century-old political structure of the entire region, with huge consequences for our friends and allies there.

If the terrorists continue south and take the capital, Baghdad, or threaten the Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf, a full-scale civil war is likely. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani Friday issued the first call for "jihad" by the Shiite religious leadership in almost 100 years. Radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr has reactivated his " Mahdi " army and other Shiite leaders have recalled two battalions from Syria to fight in Iraq. A serious threat to the holy cities would almost certainly provoke intervention by Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the side of the Shiites. Kurdish leaders, who have the best-organized military force in Iraq, have taken advantage of the current chaos to wrest control of the long-coveted city of Kirkuk from the central government, and would be tempted to declare Kurdistan's independence.

Those Americans who have pressed in the past for dividing Iraq should be careful: They might get what they wished for. The price would be very high: a regional war on top of an Iraqi civil war. American action now would be considerably less difficult than later.

After a feckless and hesitant American policy against any intervention to stop Bashar Assad's slaughter in Syria, the region needs to see that we understand the risks by demonstrating a clear commitment to help restabilize Iraq. That means first stopping the southward march of the ISIL; then helping the Iraqis retake important cities like Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah...

Continue reading.

And, if you can bear it, watch Bremer's interview with Erin Burnett on CNN, " Paul Bremer: Obama is to blame for Iraq."

A a leftist attack dog, I tweeted:

.@ErinBurnett You cannot be serious with that Paul Bremer interview?!!! My god Stephanie Cutter's got nothing on you, Obama flack!
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 17, 2014

Military Package for U.S. Counteroffensive Against #ISIS in Iraq

Following-up from earlier, "Iraq Expert Danielle Pletka Beats Back Leftist Talking Points on 'Crossfire'."

See Jack Keane and Danielle Pletka, at the Wall Street Journal, "A Plan to Save Iraq From ISIS and Iran":

The Middle East is in a downward spiral. More than 160,000 have died in Syria's civil war, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, aka ISIS, has captured key Iraqi cities and is marching on Baghdad, and the security investments made by the U.S. over the past decade—like them or not—are being frittered away.

It is still possible to reverse the recent gains of ISIS, an outgrowth of what was once al Qaeda in Iraq. The group's fighters number only in the thousands, and while well-armed, they lack the accoutrements of a serious military. But only the United States can provide the necessary military assistance for Baghdad to beat back our shared enemy.

Setting aside for the moment the question of whether this administration has the will to intervene again in Iraq, here are the components of a reasonable military package that can make a difference:

• Intelligence architecture. Iraq's intel screens went blank after the U.S. military pulled out in 2011. Washington needs to restore Baghdad's ability to access national, regional and local intelligence sources, enabling the Iraqi military to gain vital situational awareness.

• Planners and advisers. The Iraqi military needs planners to assist with the defense of Baghdad and the eventual counter-offensive to regain lost territory, as well as advisers down to division level where units are still viable.

• Counterterrorism. Special operations forces should be employed clandestinely to attack high value ISIS targets and leaders in Iraq and Syria.

• Air power. Air power alone cannot win a war, but it can significantly diminish enemy forces and, when used in coordination with ground forces, can exponentially increase the odds of success.

SIS has made extraordinary progress in recent weeks in Iraq and controls large swaths of territory in northern Syria. But its forces are not impregnable and their tactics are not terribly complicated. ISIS has progressed via two main routes in Iraq, traveling during the day in columns. Its forces and staging areas are exposed targets—but the Iraqis have very limited air power.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and some of the necessary target development have already begun on the Iraq side; the U.S. needs to expand them to the Syria side of the Iraqi-Syrian border. We need to know more about who is moving, how they're moving, who is helping, and how to stop them. This target information will assist air interdiction and non-American ground forces to counter ISIS.

The next necessary step is air interdiction of ISIS staging areas, supplies, sanctuaries and lines of communication...

Continue reading.

See also, "Frederick Kagan and William Kristol: Plan for #Iraq."

Samantha Hoopes for Galore Magazine

She's wonderful.

See: "COVER STORY: THE ALL-AMERICAN BOMBSHELL SAMANTHA HOOPES BRINGING THE SEXY."

Frederick Kagan and William Kristol: Plan for #Iraq

At the Weekly Standard, "What to Do in Iraq":

Throwing our weight behind Iran in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, as some are suggesting, would make things even worse. Conducting U.S. airstrikes without deploying American special operators or other ground forces would in effect make the U.S. Iran’s air force. Such an approach would be extremely shortsighted. The al Qaeda threat in Iraq is great, and the U.S. must take action against it. But backing the Iranians means backing the Shi’a militias that have been the principal drivers of sectarian warfare, to say nothing of turning our backs on the moderates on both sides who are suffering the most. Allowing Iran to in effect extend its border several hundred kilometers to the west with actual troop deployments would be a strategic disaster. In addition, the U.S. would be perceived as becoming the ally of the Islamic Republic of Iran against all of the forces of the Arab and Sunni world, conceding Syria to the Iranian-backed Bashir al-Assad, and accepting the emergence of an Iranian hegemony soon to be backed by nuclear weapons. And at the end of the day, Iran is not going to be able to take over the Sunni areas of Iraq—so we would end up both strengthening Iran and not defeating ISIS.

Now is not the time to re-litigate either the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or the decision to withdraw from it in 2011. The crisis is urgent, and it would be useful to focus on a path ahead rather than indulge in recriminations. All paths are now fraught with difficulties, including the path we recommend. But the alternatives of permitting a victory for al Qaeda and/or strengthening Iran would be disastrous.

Heh, I love that "not the time to re-litigate" bit. That's all the left wants to do, frankly. They don't care about anything other than protecting President Clusterf-k and blaming everything in Iraq on the evil George W. Bush.

Speaking of which, all the usual leftist idiots are aggregated at the Memeorandum thread.

In Texas' Rio Grande Valley, a Seemingly Endless Surge of Immigrants

This was at the Los Angeles Times over the weekend, now at Memeorandum.

Here's a video, in Spanish, of illegals taking a raft over the Rio Grande a month ago: "Immigrants crossing the Rio Grande river."

More at Gateway Pundit, "35,000 Illegal Immigrants Stream Across U.S. Border EACH MONTH."

Behind #Iraq's Sectarian Divide

And interesting ethnic primer at the New York Times, on video: "A Look at Iraq's Factions and Their Goals."

Iraq Expert Danielle Pletka Beats Back Leftist Talking Points on 'Crossfire'

I love how she says, "Heh, hold your horses. We could argue about going into Iraq until the cows come home," or something to that effect, heh.

Obama Sending 275 Troops to Protect U.S. Embassy in Baghdad

This is breaking, at the Hill, "Obama: 275 troops to Iraq to protect embassy."

Sources: #ISIS Jihadists Likely Have U.S.-Made Stinger Missiles

Right now on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren.

I'll update as more information becomes available.

BREAKING NEWS: “appears likely/probable” that US made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents http://t.co/4wmf6iaaXG

— Greta Van Susteren (@gretawire) June 16, 2014

U.N. Condemns 'War Crimes' as Tal Afar Falls to Jihadists in #Iraq

See, Telegraph UK, "Iraq crisis: UN condemns 'war crimes' as another town falls to Isis":

Human rights commissioner Navi Pillay voices shock at 'executions' carried out by militants as Isis takes Tal Afar, once a symbol of US military success.

Cold blooded "executions" said to have been carried out by militants in northern Iraq almost certainly amount to war crimes, the United Nations said on Monday, as a key northern town fell to the insurgents.

After the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis) released graphic photographs of its fighters shooting scores of young men, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, voiced shock over the bloodshed.

Isis claims to have executed 1,700 people after capturing the Iraqi city of Tikrit. Ms Pillay said the figure could not be verified, but added: "This apparently systematic series of cold-blooded executions, mostly conducted in various locations in the Tikrit area, almost certainly amounts to war crimes."

Ms Pillay urged "comprehensive action", saying: "We want to alert the world to address this immediately."

More.

Comprehensive action. What does that mean? The U.N. can do about as much in Iraq as it did in Ukraine, which is nothing.

Also at the New York Times, "Sunni Rebels in Iraq Kill Shiite Volunteers and Seize New City." And at the Guardian UK, "Iraqi city of Tal Afar falls to Isis insurgents."

Above, the Telegraph has captions translating the clip I posted yesterday: "Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC."

New Photos Show #ISIS Excecuting Iraqi Troops Near Syrian Border — GRAPHIC

From Dubai journalist Jenan Moussa, on Twitter.

Obama White House Vacillates on #Iraq

Watch retired Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff, on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News.

See, "ISIS Closes In on Baghdad While White House Vacillates."

Who knows, maybe we'll see some airstrikes soon. Earlier: "CNN Reports Obama Administration Leaning Toward Airstrikes in #Iraq."

Indeed, Obama Administration Had a Choice About What to Do in #Iraq

Patrick Brennan, at National Review, just destroys idiot MSNBC hack Chris Hayes, "No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq."



These are fundamentally unserious people. Unfortunately the same sort of fundamentally unserious people are now in charge of American national security.

I could really go for a Will Ferrell address to the nation on Iraq

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 16, 2014

CNN Reports Obama Administration Leaning Toward Airstrikes in #Iraq

Someone at the White House is beating the president over the head, saying, "Sir, you can't just leave the U.S. out of this. Forget your pledge to end the war. We need to go back in and do SOMETHING!"

So, here's Brooke Baldwin:



RELATED: At Weasel Zippers, "Report: Obama Considering Sending U.S. Special Forces to Iraq…"

College Porn Star Belle Knox Loses Financial Aid at Duke University

Her real name is Miriam Weeks. "Belle Knox" is her stage name.

Now she's lost her tuition, but she's making so much money she'll still be able to afford it.

At Time, "‘Duke Porn Star’: I Lost My Financial Aid."

D-Day Veteran Bernard Jordan 'Overwhelmed' After Receiving 2,500 Birthday Cards

This is great, at Telegraph UK:

Bernard Jordan, who absconded from his care home to join his comrades in Normandy for D-Day, receives thousands of cards and presents on his 90th birthday.

More at Sky News, "90-Year-Old Veteran Returns Home After Normandy Adventure."

Chrissy Teigen, Nina Agdal and Lily Aldridge

For Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:

Ex-CIA Deputy Chief Michael Morell Slams Obama's #Iran Rapprochement — #Iraq #ISIS

At the Washington Free Beacon, "Morell: Not in U.S. Interests to Work with Iran to Stop ISIS."

Yeah, well, you think?

Full video at CBS "This Morning":

Al-Shabaab Massacres Dozens in Nairobi! U.S Marines Stationed Atop Embassy!

At London's Daily Mail, "'My husband told them we were Christians and they shot him in the head': How al-Shabaab militia went from door to door killing non-Muslims as Kenyan village watched World Cup."

And at Pamela's, "“U.S. Marines Now Stationed on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi”: Dozens Killed In Jihadist Attack On Kenyan Town":

More of the catastrophic fall-out of Obama’s pro-jihadist foreign policy putsch. The roiling chaos across the Middle East and Africa escalates at frightening speed.

Obama’s patriarchal homeland, once the beacon of democracy on the dark continent, is under siege by jihadists.

Obama’s priority? He is coming to New York in as part of a Democratic fundraising effort.

CNN Reports on #Iraq Troop Executions by Tunisian #ISIS Jihadi

I reported on this yesterday, "Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC."

CNN's Brooke Baldwin is reporting on this as this post goes live, and here's an Arwa Damon report from a little while ago.

MSM outlets are at least 24 hours late on reporting ISIS war crimes in #IRAQ. Here's looking at you @CNN, @NYTimes.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

"This just in," @CNN, on the Tunisian jihadist's execution of Iraq soldiers? That story broke yesterday. @BrookeBCNN

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

Hey John Kerry, Iran's EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrators) Killed Hundreds of U.S. Troops in #Iraq!

A number of outlets are reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry is opening talks on security cooperation with Iran, which is world's biggest state-sponsor of international terrorism.

For Example, at the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. may join Iran in effort to resolve crisis in Iraq"; at Politico, "John Kerry: U.S. open to talks with Iran over Iraq"; and the Wall Street Journal, "Iraq Loses Key City, as U.S. 'Open' to Iran Talks on Crisis."

It boggles the mind that the Obama administration would be seeking an entente with our greatest enemy in the region, or perhaps not, since the president and his treasonous cronies have been scheming to reduce U.S. global power from their first day in office.

Here's National Journal's report from 2011, "Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by Iranian Weapons":

U.S. military commanders in Iraq say Iranian-made weaponry is killing American troops there at an unprecedented pace, posing new dangers to the remaining forces and highlighting Tehran’s intensifying push to gain influence over post-U.S. Iraq.

June was the deadliest month in more than two years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. In May, the U.S. death toll was two. In April, it was 11. Senior U.S. commanders say the three primary Iranian-backed militias, Kataib Hezbollah, the Promise Day Brigade, and Asaib al Haq, and their rockets were behind 12 of the deaths in June.

A detailed U.S. military breakdown of June’s casualties illustrates the growing threat posed by Iranian munitions.

Military officials said six of the 14 dead troops were killed by so-called “explosively formed penetrators,” or EFPs, a sophisticated roadside bomb capable of piercing through even the best-protected U.S. vehicles. Five other troops were killed earlier in the month when a barrage of rockets slammed into their base in Baghdad. It was the largest single-day U.S. loss of life since April 2009, when a truck bomb killed five soldiers. The remaining three troops killed in June died after a rocket known as an “improvised rocket-assisted mortar,” or IRAM, landed in a remote U.S. outpost in southern Iraq.

U.S. officials say the EFPs, rockets, and IRAMs all come from neighboring Iran. Tehran denies providing the weaponry to Shia militias operating in Iraq.

“We’re seeing a sharp increase in the amount of munitions coming across the border, some manufactured as recently as 2010,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an interview. “These are highly lethal weapons, and their sheer volume is a major concern.”

Buchanan said much of the current weaponry is passing into the country through its formal border crossings with Iran. Current and former American military officers claim that those border crossings are guarded by Iraqi security personnel whose long-standing financial relationships with their Iranian counterparts means they will accept bribes or turn a blind eye in order to allow munitions through.

Back in 2007, the Washington post called EFPs "The Deadliest IEDs." See, "'The single most effective weapon against our deployed forces'":

IEDs have caused nearly two-thirds of the 3,100 American combat deaths in Iraq, and an even higher proportion of battle wounds. This year alone, through mid-July, they have also resulted in an estimated 11,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and more than 600 deaths among Iraqi security forces. To the extent that the United States is not winning militarily in Iraq, the roadside bomb, which as of Sept. 22 had killed or wounded 21,200 Americans, is both a proximate cause and a metaphor for the miscalculation and improvisation that have characterized the war.

EFPs constituted the most serious threat the coalition forces in Iraq. Here's Toby Harnden in 2006, at Telegraph UK, "Three Iranian factories 'mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq'":

Three factories in Iran are mass-producing the sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill British soldiers over the border in Iraq, it has been claimed.

The lethal bombs are being made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at ordnance factory sites in Tehran, according to opponents of the country's theocratic regime.

Designed to penetrate heavy armour, the devices being manufactured in Iran involve the use of "explosively formed projectiles" or EFPs, also known as shaped charges, often triggered by infra-red beams.

The weapons can pierce the armour of British and American tanks and armoured personnel carriers and completely destroy armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the majority of British troops on operations in Iraq.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in April that Iranian-made devices employing several EFPs, directed at different angles, were being used in Iraq.

And in June, this newspaper obtained the first picture of one of the Iraqi insurgent weapons - designed to fire an armour-piercing EFP - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers.

British Government scientists have already established that the mines are precision-made weapons thought to have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.

Members of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee have released the details about the three bomb factories gathered by the exile group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI).

Here are graphic photos of the destruction inflicted by these devices. In your mind's eye, situate yourself behind the controls of a Humvee patrolling Baghdad in 2007. Via Pajamas Media, "How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq." These projectiles explode at more than 2,000 feet-per-second:





And now the U.S. is seeking to give Tehran a lead role in resolving the crisis in Iraq? That'd be like opening talks on cooperation with the German High Command as British and French forces were being evacuated at Dunkirk in 1940.

The Obama administration has sold out American interests and placed the lives of Americans and untold number of Iraqis at risk. The solution is not to let Iran gain greater influence in Iraq. We have the options to reverse the ISIS advance. And we have over a decade of on-the-ground experience in defeating the jihadi extremist. All we need is the requisite leadership to beat back this incursion and avoid an existential defeat in the Middle East.

Obama's Iraq Disaster

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post:

When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.

Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.  Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:

First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.

Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.

The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.

More.

American Soccer Players Don't Fake Injuries or Exaggerate Contact as Much as Others

I posted a few soccer tweets the other day, joking about how I was waiting for the Angels game to come on (although I didn't go so far as to say soccer wasn't an American sport --- I used to enjoy playing soccer as a kid).

I later got a kick when I saw Althouse hilarious dissing the soccer sensationalism over the World Cup. See, "Why I'm not clicking on Google doodles for a while." And the comments are a riot:

Finally Althouse gets something right. One of the few remaining reasons to be proud of being an American is that we are the only people who realize that soccer is shit. It's the only sport that bans the use of the hands, and using our hands is what makes us human. Thus, by definition, soccer is a game for sub-humans, and, boy, do the fans show it. To be fair to them, though, the games themselves are so boring that the only way to stay awake is to start a riot or a war, or at least turn to the guy next to you and head-butt his face in.

In any case, I guess we're not so great at the sport's cheating culture either. At the New York Times, "On Soccer: Where Dishonesty Is Best Policy, U.S. Soccer Falls Short":

NATAL, Brazil — The list of improvements that the United States men’s soccer team needs to make is considerable. Coach Jurgen Klinsmann would like to see a more consistent back line, better touch from his midfielders and plenty more production from the attackers.  

Yet as Klinsmann and his players begin their World Cup here Monday against Ghana, trickier questions of soccer acumen have come into focus:

Are the Americans bad at playacting? And if so, should they try to get better?

The first part seems easy enough. For better or worse, gamesmanship and embellishment — or, depending on your sensibilities, cheating — are part of high-level soccer. Players exaggerate contact. They amplify the mundane. They turn niggling knocks into something closer to grim death.

They do all this to force the referee to make decisions, with the hope that if he is confronted by imagined bloodshed often enough, he will ultimately determine he has seen some. Applying this sort of pressure on the official is a skill that, by their own admission, United States players generally perform poorly, if they perform it at all...

More.

#Obama Faces Fresh Questions on 'How Wars End'

From Julie Pace, at AP, "For Obama, Fresh Questions About How Wars End":

This is how wars end in 2014 (plus victory kiss update) http://t.co/XoecUUL7qd #TCOT pic.twitter.com/yNTlD7n6AA

— The People's Cube (@ThePeoplesCube) June 15, 2014

From the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama outlined a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of the last U.S. troops in Afghanistan and said confidently, "This is how wars end in the 21st century."

But less than three weeks after his May 27 announcement, there is a sudden burst of uncertainty surrounding the way Obama has moved to bring the two conflicts he inherited to a close.

In Iraq, a fast-moving Islamic insurgency is pressing toward Baghdad, raising the possibility of fresh American military action more than two years after the last U.S. troops withdrew. The chaos in Iraq also raises questions about whether Obama's plans to keep a small military presence in Afghanistan until the end of 2016 can prevent a similar backslide there or whether extremists are simply lying in wait until the U.S. withdrawal deadline passes.

"Could all of this have been avoided? The answer is absolutely yes," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. McCain, one of the White House's chief foreign policy critics and Obama's 2008 presidential rival, added that Obama is "about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan he made in Iraq."

That criticism strikes at the heart of Obama's clearest foreign policy pledge: a commitment to ending the conflicts started by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and keeping the U.S. out of further military entanglements.

The turmoil in Iraq presents a particularly troubling dilemma for the White House. Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war was a defining factor in his 2008 presidential campaign and he cast the withdrawal of all American troops in late 2011 as a promise fulfilled. The president and his top advisers have since cited the end of the war as one of Obama's top achievements in office.

But the vacuum left by American forces has been filled by waves of resurgent violence and burgeoning Sunni extremism. Still, Obama resisted calls for the U.S. to get involved, saying it was now Iraq's sovereign government's responsibility to ensure the country's security.

The current situation in Iraq appears to have made that stance untenable.

Obama, who once called Iraq a "dumb war," now says it is clear the government in Baghdad needs more help from the U.S. in order to contain a violent al-Qaida inspired group that, he said, could pose a threat to American security interests.

While the White House is still evaluating a range of options, administration officials say the president is considering strikes with manned aircrafts, but only if Iraqi leaders were to outline a political plan for easing sectarian tensions.

Even limited and targeted U.S. airstrikes in Iraq would mark an almost unimaginable turn of events for many of the war-weary Americans who twice elected Obama president.

Continue reading.

Laura Ingraham on Sunday's News Shows

Ingraham played a huge hand in the Dave Brat win last week.

Watch, from "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," with Jonathan Karl moderating, "'This Week': Powerhouse Roundtable I."

Fact that #luisgutierrez said on @ThisWeekABC that he is not for amnesty is funnier than my #Cantor Taliban prisoner swap joke.

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 15, 2014

And on Howard Kurtz's show, on Fox News, "Radio Host Helped Sink Cantor - Ingraham Campaigned With David Brat."

#ISIS Leader Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Looks to Gain Ground in #Iraq

At WSJ, "Top Militant Carves New Identity for Group: Leader of al Qaeda Offshoot ISIS, Emphasizing Practical Gains and Patriotism Over Ideology, Distinguishes His Mission":

As a master's-degree student at a university in Baghdad in 1997, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai was so poor he took cash handouts every month from a kindly professor, said a former classmate.

Now flush with cash, armed to the teeth and backed by an army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, he is within striking distance of attacking the city where spent his humble youth.  The rise of the militant Islamist leader, who changed his name to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi in 2010, is a rags-to-riches story that mirrors the rise of the ISIS militia he now leads.

By emphasizing practical gains over ideology and placing a premium on battlefield victories rather than lofty principals, Mr. Baghdadi's ISIS has become one of the most powerful militant Islamist groups, said experts on militant Islamism.  For the West, ISIS's strength and identity have created a new sort of enemy that has a reputation for brutality and in many ways looks and acts like the army of a state seeking to expand its territory.

ISIS is "actualizing the idea of the Islamic state. On the jihadi side of things, there's appeal in that," said Aaron Zelin, an expert on Islamist groups at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  "You have guys just talking about it and al Qaeda and Jabhat Al Nusra saying they'll get there, whereas ISIS is just doing it," he said, referring to ISIS's rivals in Syria and throughout the world.

While ISIS shares much of the same ideology and jihadist vocabulary as al Qaeda, it differs on methodology. Whereas al Qaeda, which got its start during the resistance against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s, behaves as a terrorist organization advancing a global ideology, ISIS in many ways acts like the army of a sovereign nation with defined borders and a semi-legitimate system of governance...

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

Obama-Addled Democrat Slurs Iraq Vet J.R. Saltzman: 'You got your arm blown off cause of #BushCheneyLies...'

Man, this dude is overdosing on the leftist Obama-laced Kool-aid.

At Twitchy, "‘Beneath contempt’: Iraq vet J.R. Salzman told he lost arm because of Bush and not doing his job":

Classy guy, that @mikeejoe. I guess any soldier who lost a limb in Iraq wasn't doing their job. pic.twitter.com/N8zrXeP0V1

— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 15, 2014

Total asshole:

Dirtbag leftist: ~~> @mikeejoe

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

Obama Sneakily Releases 12 Jihadis from Parwan Detention Center in #Afghanistan

Obama's sending the terrorists back to the battlefield, very quietly and secretly.

At Jihad Watch, "U.S. quietly releases 12 jihadis from U.S. military prison in Afghanistan":

Just in case the five jihadis traded for Bowe Bergdahl weren’t enough, Barack Obama has released twelve more. What could possibly go wrong? Ten of them are Pakistanis, and “Pakistani officials have said that returned detainees would be kept under surveillance to make sure they had no militant links.” We all know that Pakistani authorities are completely honest and indefatigably anti-jihad!

Keep reading.

IDF Soldiers Arrest Top Hamas Terrorist Hassan Yousef

Via Blazing Cat Fur, who's got a complete report, "Things heat up in Israel over kidnapped teens: Shots fired at soldiers near Jerusalem, rockets at Ashkelon."

Lara Logan: #ISIS Arms Seizures Have 'significantly changed the dynamics of what we face...'

I watched this morning, the first time I've seen her on TV since that botched "60 Minutes" segment on Benghazi some time ago. She's lucky she wasn't fired. But good thing. If you know Logan, she's really one of the few network reporters out there who truly understands the nature of the enemy and the costs to international security from an American and Iraq defeat across the region.

At Truth Revolt, "Lara Logan Explains the Disaster of Losing US Weapons to ISIS."



And flashback to 2012, "Lara Logan Speaks Truth to War on Terror."

U.S. Must Put Out the Fire in #Iraq — With Ground Troops

So far the first analysis I've read thus far expliciting calling for a ground troop deployment.

From Frederick Kagan, at the New York Daily News, "Put out this fire":

President Obama says that he is mulling options for providing support to Iraq, but with great reluctance. "The U.S. is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis," he said Friday.

A political plan for Iraq is vital. Everything the administration has said about the sectarianism and mis-governance of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is true. Assistance to Iraq must include strong conditions to press Maliki to change his approach - or leave office.

But the Iraqis need vigorous and intelligent American involvement right now to prevent a stalemate that will leave ISIS in control of much of northern Iraq. That is an unacceptable outcome, one that would do far more damage to America than our retreat from Vietnam in 1975.

We face a simple choice: We can either rejoin our demoralized Iraqi partners in the fight against ISIS or we can watch as this Al Qaeda franchise solidifies its control over several million Iraqis and Syrians, completes its plundering of military bases and continues to build up, train and equip an honest-to-goodness military.

Rejoining the fight means immediately sending air support; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; air transportation; Special Operations forces; training teams; and more military equipment back into Iraq. It does not mean re-invading Iraq.

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required...

Keep reading.

RELATED: At the Wall Street Journal, "Militants Claim Photos Show Mass Execution in Iraq: Twitter Account Associated With ISIS Appears to Dozens of Captured Men in Civilian Clothes," and "Iraq Militants Claim Soldier Massacre: Photos of Alleged Killings Posted Online as U.S., Iran Near Talks on Cooperation to Counter Insurgents."

Also at Long War Journal, "ISIS photographs detail execution of Iraqi soldiers."

Beware the Islamic #Caliphate in the Middle East

From political scientist Michael Curtis, at American Thinker, "Beware the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East":

The Obama administration confronts a difficult problem of what role to play in the context of the success of ISIS, civil war in both Iraq and Syria, and sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The administration was wrong when the chief of staff, Denis McDonough, declared in 2011 that the U.S. had helped bring about a secure, stable, self-reliant Iraq. No one is presently calling for American troops to fight on Iraqi soil. But should the U.S. now supply drones and manned aircraft, strengthen intelligence capabilities, and aid in more training exercises? Can the administration and U.S. citizens in general forget the American sacrifices and losses in the battles for Mosul and Fallujah? The Obama belief that the tide of war was receding and therefore that the U.S. could reduce its forces abroad, and concentrate on “nation-building,” was always arguable, if popular in public opinion, and now resembles a policy of appeasement. It was unhelpful that Obama suggested to Congress that it repeal the 2001 Authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda.

American refusal or hesitation in helping to control the Islamic threat in Iraq is even more unacceptable because the objective of ISIS is clear. It is fighting to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Persian Gulf area, and to become the leader of global jihad. ISIS has declared that “we are soldiers of Islam and took on our responsibility to bring back the glory of the Islamic Caliphate."

Whatever the decisions made by President Obama on the increasingly perilous situation in Iraq, and the regional instability caused by the ambitions of ISIS, he has to take into account two other facts: the decision for total withdrawal in 2016 from Afghanistan, a country menaced by the Taliban, and the interest of some Palestinians to create another version of the Islamic caliphate surrounding or replacing the State of Israel. Will the U.S. and the European Union face with all their courage the fight against Islamic tyranny and the support for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?

RTWT.

Father's Day #Rule5

I'm going to hold off on a big roundup today. I want to keep up with developments in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Pirate's cove has some lovely Rule 5 blogging, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be banned for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist."

Have a great day everybody!

ADDED: At First Street Journal, "Rule 5 Blogging: Back to the IDF!," and Goodstuff's, "GOODSTUFF'S BLOGGING MAGAZINE (143rd Issue)."

U.S. Begins Evacuation of U.S. Embassy in #Iraq

At the New York Times (via Memeorandum), "U.S. to Evacuate Many Staff Members From Baghdad Embassy."

Also at Gateway Pundit, "U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD to Begin Evacuation," and Zero Hedge, "U.S. Orders Partial Evacuation of Baghdad Embassy as Aircraft Carrier Arrives in Gulf." (Added: From Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "U.S. to evacuate substantial number of personnel from Baghdad embassy."

And here's this morning's report from CBS News:

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Calls for Western Intervention in #Iraq

At the BBC, "Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'."

And from the Office of Tony Blair, "Iraq, Syria and the Middle East – An essay by Tony Blair":

The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat.  We will have to re-think our strategy towards Syria; support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency; whilst making it clear that Iraq’s politics will have to change for any resolution of the current crisis to be sustained. Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade. In doing so, we should listen to and work closely with our allies across the region, whose understanding of these issues is crucial and who are prepared to work with us in fighting the root causes of this extremism which goes far beyond the crisis in Iraq or Syria.

It is inevitable that events in Mosul have led to a re-run of the arguments over the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. The key question obviously is what to do now. But because some of the commentary has gone immediately to claim that but for that decision, Iraq would not be facing this challenge; or even more extraordinary, implying that but for the decision, the Middle East would be at peace right now; it is necessary that certain points are made forcefully before putting forward a solution to what is happening now.  3/4 years ago Al Qaida in Iraq was a beaten force. The country had massive challenges but had a prospect, at least, of overcoming them. It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.

Though the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of the Maliki Government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq. This, combined with the failure to use the oil money to re-build the country, and the inadequacy of the Iraqi forces have led to the alienation of the Sunni community and the inability of the Iraqi army to repulse the attack on Mosul and the earlier loss of Fallujah. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon.

However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria.  To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

As for how these events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam, if we want to have this debate, we have to do something that is rarely done: put the counterfactual i.e. suppose in 2003, Saddam had been left running Iraq.  Now take each of the arguments against the decision in turn...

The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.

The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution.

But because of the way these factors interrelate, the revolution was never going to be straightforward. This is the true lesson of Iraq. But it is also the lesson from the whole of the so-called Arab Spring. The fact is that as a result of the way these societies have developed and because Islamism of various descriptions became the focal point of opposition to oppression, the removal of the dictatorship is only the beginning not the end of the challenge. Once the regime changes, then out come pouring all the tensions – tribal, ethnic and of course above all religious; and the rebuilding of the country, with functioning institutions and systems of Government, becomes incredibly hard. The extremism de-stabilises the country, hinders the attempts at development, the sectarian divisions become even more acute and the result is the mess we see all over the region. And beyond it. Look at Pakistan or Afghanistan and the same elements are present.

Understanding this and analysing properly what has happened, is absolutely vital to the severe challenge of working out what we can do about it. So rather than continuing to re-run the debate over Iraq from over 11 years ago, realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.  Indeed we now have three examples of Western policy towards regime change in the region. In Iraq, we called for the regime to change, removed it and put in troops to try to rebuild the country. But intervention proved very tough and today the country is at risk again. In Libya, we called for the regime to change, we removed it by airpower, but refused to put in troops and now Libya is racked by instability, violence and has exported vast amounts of trouble and weapons across North Africa and down into sub- Saharan Africa. In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

And when we do act, it is often difficult to discern the governing principles of action. Gaddafi, who in 2003 had given up his WMD and cooperated with us in the fight against terrorism, is removed by us on the basis he threatens to kill his people but Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.  So what does all this mean? How do we make sense of it? I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully.

The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.

Ok, so if it is that hard, why not stay out of it all, the current default position of the West? The answer is because the outcome of this long transition impacts us profoundly. At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.

However more than that, in this struggle will be decided many things: the fate of individual countries, the future of the Middle East, and the direction of the relationship between politics and the religion of Islam. This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations. And it will affect how Islam develops across the world. If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.  There is no sensible policy for the West based on indifference. This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not...

Continue reading.

Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC

According to Dubai journalist Jenan Moussa on Twitter (here, here, and here):





More on the jihadist's Facebook page. Social media for the caliphate.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."



Also at Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up...", and "Reaganite Republican, "

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Desertion," and Randy's Roundtable, "Friday Nite Funnies."

CARTOON CREDIT: Marian Kamensky.

#ISIS Jihadists Prepare for Khalifah in #Iraq

Checking the #ISIS pages on Twitter, there's lots of talk of jihadist forces quickly encroaching on Baghdad, but it's mostly in Arabic, so I can't confirm.

That said, numerous ISIS accounts are boasting of the coming Khalifah (caliphate).

Inshallah.

"@AbuAishah_: Bi'ithnillāh! pic.twitter.com/Gnkv6QDJGI"
— #PrayforISIS (@Haneeeeeeefaa) June 15, 2014

Caan't wait. Oh I cant WAIT. ^_^ :")) pic.twitter.com/GbWH61UjSB
— #PrayforISIS (@Haneeeeeeefaa) June 15, 2014

The munafiqeen refuse to awknowledge the possibility of Khilafa in Iraq while the kuffar mention it as the greatest threat arising.
— Ghazi (@ghazishami) June 15, 2014

Miranda Kerr Flaunts Cleavage in New Photoshoot for 'The Edit' Magazine

At London's Daily Mail, "She's the ultimate biker babe! Miranda Kerr flaunts considerable cleavage in a low cut top as she straddles a motorcycle in VERY racy new photo shoot."

Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'The Next 9/11' Now Being Planted by #Iraq Chaos

I caught this interview earlier.

I don't love Sen. Grahamnesty, but as he says at the clip, he's been to Iraq more times than he can count.

VIDEO: Mitt Romney Eerily Predicted Epic # Iraq Collapse in '07

This is fantastic!

Via Independent Journal Review, "In 2007, Romney Predicted Current Events In Iraq So Accurately He Must Have Had A Time Machine."

Oh My! Leftist Wonk Rosa Brooks Shreds Obama's Foreign Policy in One Tweet!

Via Theo Spark:

US respnse 2 Syria,Russia,Iraq: 1)Huh? 2)We're watching this closely 3)With concern. 4)Hey, stop- 5)We won't tolerate that! 6)Mmm. Whatever.

— Rosa Brooks (@brooks_rosa) June 13, 2014

Brooks is very far to the left. Indeed, seems to me O's foreign policy would be right in her wheelhouse. Chalk it up to one more political opportunist abandoning this administration faster than you can say "Election 2016."

Leftists 'Re-Litigate' the #Iraq War

I noted the other day how MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski wanted "to go back and 're-litigate' the origins of the war in 2003."

I suppose it's a standard of our time, but everything nowadays --- and I mean everything --- is evaluated through the harsh lens of political polarization.

Today's exhibit: David Atkins' piece attacking the evil "neocons" at the Washington Monthly, "The brutal neoconservative legacy in Iraq."

The funny thing about this: I don't disagree with a lot of the criticism. It's just too obviously bothersome to note that President Bush had bipartisan support for approving 2002's Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, including a majority of the Democrats (58 percent) in the Senate, and especially Hillary Clinton. (And recall President Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, authorizing regime change in Baghdad as a continuation of U.S. policy since the 1991 Persian Gulf War).



So, yeah, a lot went wrong with the war, but the deployment had the support of the American people, as well as top political leaders across the spectrum. The attacks on the war since 2003 have been the most treasonous political about-face in modern times, if not in American history. The true face of the Democrat Party was revealed for all to see at that time, and the country ultimately elected Barack Obama to the White House on a hard left antiwar platform. And how's that working out? The fruits of the antiwar movement are now seen today from the release of Bowe Bergdahl to the coming collapse of Baghdad. That's the Democrat Party legacy. And that's what's going to be remembered when people ask "Who lost Iraq"?

Hat Tip: BooMan Tribune and Memeorandum.

Nicole Kidman at 'Grace of Monaco' Press Conference at Shanghai International Film Festival on Sunday

Lovely.

At London's Daily Mail, "Perky Nicole Kidman covers up her ample cleavage two days after wearing a VERY low cut gown that stole the show."

VIDEO: MI-35 Helicopter Gunship Fires on #ISIS Jihadists in Iraq

Via SilverIsTheNew:

Footage released by Iraq’s defense ministry on Saturday showed a helicopter gunship targeting what Iraq says are Sunni militant targets in northern Iraq. The Mi-35 helicopter gunship fired missiles at several buildings and a vehicle in the provinces of Nineveh and Salaheddin.

More at RT.

Plus, at London's Daily Mail, "How Isis have rampaged towards the capital: A blow by blow account of how Islamist militants outnumbered 20-to-1 by the army cut through huge swathes of Iraq."

Check back for updates throughout the day.

#Angels Rally to Beat #Braves 11-6 in 13 Innings

One heckuva game.

At LAT, "It's a lucky 13th for the Angels against Atlanta."

Just read it all at the link.

Mike DiGiovanna on Twitter was going crazy himself, to say nothing of my friend lamblock!

Albert Pujols leads of 10th with 2B off Kimbrel, Hamilton follows with RBI 1B to give #Angels 6-5 lead. Crazy, wacky stuff.
— Mike DiGiovanna (@MikeDiGiovanna) June 15, 2014

Here's something I didn't expect to hear: "C.J. Wilson pinch-hitting for the Angels." It's true, in the top of the 13th.
— Mike DiGiovanna (@MikeDiGiovanna) June 15, 2014

#Angels load bases with no outs in 13th. Calhoun RBI 1B, Trout 2-run 2B, now 9-6 over #Braves. No more tweets. Gotta write.
— Mike DiGiovanna (@MikeDiGiovanna) June 15, 2014

I'm going to be blind drunk in the corner signing Irish drinking songs if we don't win soon LOL @AmPowerBlog

— Bossy & Proud of It (@lamblock) June 15, 2014

Judge Jeanine Pirro: 'You Need to Be Worried...'

Week in and week out, Judge Jeanine broadcasts the most devastating attacks on this cowardly presidential regime. But believe it when she says even she's scared this time. The disintegration of Iraq threatens Americans. The war will come to the homeland. It's only a matter of time. This to our Nobel Prize winning president, who declared that the U.S. was leaving behind a "stable, peaceful Iraq."

Hardly.

For the U.S., a Disappointing World

From Walter Russell Mead, at WSJ (via Blazing Cat Fur), "The chaos in Iraq is just the latest evidence that history doesn't follow America's optimistic script":

It has not been a good year for the liberal world order. Not since the end of the Cold War have so many crises erupted in so many places: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's relentless push in the East and South China seas, and the surge in jihadist violence and terror from Boko Haram in Nigeria to the religious war that now engulfs Syria and Iraq. This is not what Americans thought the world would look like in the third decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

As we struggle to understand why the post-Cold War world has been such an unpleasant place, it is tempting to turn foreign policy into a political football. There are plenty of Democrats who think that everything would have been fine if President George W. Bush hadn't blundered into the Iraq war. There is also no shortage of Republicans who think that everything would have worked out fine if only Barack Obama hadn't made it to the White House.

While it is true that both presidents got some important things wrong, it is what unites them rather than what divides them that is the root cause of our troubles. Both Messrs. Bush and Obama, like many of their fellow citizens, radically underestimate the dangers and difficulties in the path of historical progress...

Continue reading.

#Iraq Military May Not Be Capable of Counteroffensive

From Jessica Lewis, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Terrorist Army Marching on Baghdad":

The extremists are encircling Baghdad and likely planning an offensive. But ISIS may move again to strike Samarra, 70 miles to the north and close to the ISIS front line. If these Islamists, who are Sunnis, seize Samarra's al-Askari mosque—a revered Shiite monument—the country will be thrown into another sectarian civil war. That has long been ISIS's aim. In a civil war, ISIS thinks it can emerge as the stronger military power. Then the group would have a state, would be fully armed and ready to expand westward, into Syria's northern cities beyond ISIS-held Raqqa.

The Shiite-dominated Iraqi troops would likely fight to protect Samarra and Baghdad. But the Iraqi military is not at full strength, and its forces are not combat-ready. Desertion, low morale and maintenance deficiencies are rampant. Over the past year, ISIS has thoroughly intimidated Iraqi troops in the north. Three of the four northern army divisions are defunct. The remainder are gathering now in Samarra and Taji, regrouping under other formations for the protection of Samarra and Baghdad.

Another problem: Many of Iraq's deployable units are already reinforcing Anbar province in the west against ISIS. According to 2013 estimates, the Iraqi army contains 14 maneuver divisions, roughly 200,000 soldiers in addition to 40,000 federal police and 300,000 local police. Four of the army's divisions are assigned to northern areas of Iraq that have just fallen out of state control. If Iraqi security forces try to retake the north, ISIS would be joined by Baathist elements loyal to the memory of Saddam Hussein and additional insurgent groups in trying to repel them. The Iraqi military simply may not have the capacity to launch a sufficient counteroffensive...

Continue reading.

Recall I posted Jessica Lewis yesterday, "#Iraq Analysis — The Battle for Baghdad: Scenarios."

Iraqi PM Orders Troops to Make Stand in #Samarra; U.S. Sends Aircraft Carrier

The report from earlier today, at CNN.

The U.S.S. George H. W. Bush should be in the Northern Persian Gulf about now.

#ISIS Posts Sunni Police Chief Beheading in #WorldCup Tweet — WARNING GRAPHIC

At the New York Post, "‘This is our ball’: Iraqi jihadis cut off head for World Cup tweet."

Twitter shut down the @ANSAR_DWLA_IRAQ feed, but here's the original photo:

#Iraq Analysis — The Battle for Baghdad: Scenarios

From Jessica Lewis, at the Institute for the Study of War:

Baghdad

ISIS will seek to target the seat of Iraq’s government in the Green Zone. This may be a symbolic target rather than an operational target. Strategically, ISIS does not need to overrun the Green Zone. They only need to demonstrate the ability to maneuver ground forces into the city center, past the best that the ISF can muster, and touch the flagpole. If ISIS is able to assault the Green Zone with a ground attack force, they will realize the full defeat of the Iraqi Security Forces. The command and control of Shi’a militias, police forces, and Iraqi civilians in the wake of such an attack would overwhelm the Baghdad Operations Command. The core functions of the Iraqi state would break down. Baghdad would become a ward of the Iranian government to protect the Khadimiya shrine, and Baghdad would become a buffer zone for low-level attacks across an Iranian-ISIS demarcation line...

That's at taste.

Continue reading.

Convenient: IRS Has 'Lost' Two Years of Lois Lerner's Emails

From Katie Pavlich, at Town Hall.



Also at Twitchy, "‘PHONY SCANDAL ALERT!’ Disbelief after IRS claims Lois Lerner emails have been ‘lost’," and "Rep. Jason Chaffetz: IRS testified that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived [video]."

VIDEO: Angelina Jolie — We Should Have Done More in #Syria

"It's really quite horrifying as a humanitarian ... we are lacking in leadership in the world, in general."

Yeah, well, you wouldn't want to wander too off the Hollywood-leftist reservation, heh.

Watch: "Actress Angelina Jolie: We Should Have Done More in Syria."

Neil Cavuto Interview with Mark Levin on #Iraq Disintegration

The great thing about Mark Levin is he always indicates that he's not a military or defense expert, "But when I see caravans of barbarians who're decapitating people who supported us, going down street after street after street, and our bombers and our jet-fighters just sit there getting rusty, that bothers me a lot."

Watch:

Petra Nemcova for GQ Portugal May 2014

Wow.

At Sports Illustrated, "Petra Nemcova and GQ Portugal rethink the “sideboob,” Sean Avery has some thoughts on Hilary Rhoda’s bridal look, and more news."

VIDEO: President Barack Obama #Commencement Address at University of California, Irvine

Here's the full video, "President Obama Delivers the Commencement Address at the University of California, Irvine."

Right here at home in Irvine. Turns out he threw out the "post-partisan" script.

At CNN, "Climate change deniers ‘serious threat’ to future, Obama says."

The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker?

Seriously?

The New Republic's epic smear of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, at Althouse, "'I live in Wisconsin, and I've been following Scott Walker since the 2010 election here, and I have no idea what the 'toxic strain of racial politics' refers to. But congratulations to TNR for it's eye-catching and weird sexualization of Walker: 'Scott Walker Is So Hot Right Now' and for having the nerve to sub-head with "too bad" as you smear him with the accusation of "toxic strain of racial politics'."



Althouse subscribes to TNR and has the smear, "The Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker: A Journey Through the Poisonous World That Produced a Republican Star," on her iPad.

Obama's Rush for #Iraq Exit and Maliki's Autocratic Rule Ensured Much Hard-Won Progress Would Be Lost

From Fouad Ajami, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Men Who Sealed Iraq's Disaster With a Handshake":

Two men bear direct responsibility for the mayhem engulfing Iraq: Barack Obama and Nouri al-Maliki. The U.S. president and Iraqi prime minister stood shoulder to shoulder in a White House ceremony in December 2011 proclaiming victory. Mr. Obama was fulfilling a campaign pledge to end the Iraq war. There was a utopian tone to his pronouncement, suggesting that the conflicts that had been endemic to that region would be brought to an end. As for Mr. Maliki, there was the heady satisfaction, in his estimation, that Iraq would be sovereign and intact under his dominion.

In truth, Iraq's new Shiite prime minister was trading American tutelage for Iranian hegemony. Thus the claim that Iraq was a fully sovereign country was an idle boast. Around the Maliki regime swirled mightier, more sinister players. In addition to Iran's penetration of Iraqi strategic and political life, there was Baghdad's unholy alliance with the brutal Assad regime in Syria, whose members belong to an Alawite Shiite sect and were taking on a largely Sunni rebellion. If Bashar Assad were to fall, Mr. Maliki feared, the Sunnis of Iraq would rise up next.

Now, even as Assad clings to power in Damascus, Iraq's Sunnis have risen up and joined forces with the murderous, al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which controls much of northern Syria and the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit. ISIS marauders are now marching on the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, and Baghdad itself has become a target.

In a dire sectarian development on Friday, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on his followers to take up arms against ISIS and other Sunni insurgents in defense of the Baghdad government. This is no ordinary cleric playing with fire. For a decade, Ayatollah Sistani stayed on the side of order and social peace. Indeed, at the height of Iraq's sectarian troubles in 2006-07, President George W. Bush gave the ayatollah credit for keeping the lid on that volcano. Now even that barrier to sectarian violence has been lifted.

This sad state of affairs was in no way preordained. In December 2011, Mr. Obama stood with Mr. Maliki and boasted that "in the coming years, it's estimated that Iraq's economy will grow even faster than China's or India's." But the negligence of these two men—most notably in their failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have maintained an adequate U.S. military presence in Iraq—has resulted in the current descent into sectarian civil war.

Outstanding.

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani Calls for Shia Jihad."

Iraq Veteran J.R. Salzman Slams Obama — #Iraq

Brutal.

At Twitchy, "‘Why did you throw our sacrifices away?’: Vet J.R. Salzman slams President Obama."

.@BarackObama Thousands of Americans sacrificed life and limb in Iraq, and you're tweeting about student loans as it falls to terrorists?
— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 13, 2014

I did not get an arm blown off in Baghdad so you could sit on your ass and watch Iraq fall, @BarackObama. I did my job. DO YOUR JOB.
— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 13, 2014

And don't give us any of that "I inherited this mess" BS on Iraq. You were president the last three years of the Iraq war, @BarackObama.
— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 13, 2014

You promised to fix the worlds problems, yet you somehow lost a war THAT WAS ALREADY WON. How is that even possible, @BarackObama?!?
— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 13, 2014

Wolf Blitzer Interview with John McCain on Iraq's 'Existential Threat'

Heh, he wants Susan Rice fired.

Fire 'em all for that matter!

Hundreds of British Jihadis Flooding Into #Iraq

Hoisting the black flag over Iraq.

And after they're done there, they'll head back to Britain to rain down destruction on the infidels.

At London's Daily Mail, "British fanatics heading to Iraq to join ISIS militants in their HUNDREDS amid fears 'they could bring terror to UK'."

Doctors Use Forceps to Remove Cellphone Stuck Down Man's Throat

So disgusting the nurse in the background is gobsmackingly horrified. Her face says it all as a long stream of saliva drools off the phone as doctors rip the thing from deep inside the man's oral cavity.

Truly sick.

At Mirror UK.

And on YouTube, too gross to embed (and that's saying a lot), "See man with mobile phone stuck in his mouth reducing medics to laughter."

Iraqi Military Repels #ISIS Jihadis North of Baghdad

Really?

Well, we'll see how they hold up.

I expect word anytime now of Maliki fleeing to Tehran.

But see the Wall Street Journal, "Iraqi Military Makes Gains North of Baghdad in Conflict With ISIS: U.S. Moves Aircraft Carrier into Persian Gulf."

Also at Al Alam, "Iraq forces retake town north of Baghdad."

Sounds like very limited and isolated success thus far.

Check back for updates.