Britain's Royal Air Force Jet Fighters Refuel in Skies Over Cyprus on Wednesday

This one's for Theo Spark, a blogging buddy and coalition partner:

Also, live blogging at Telegraph UK, "Libyan air force destroyed, RAF commander says."

Terror in Jerusalem: Bus Bombing Kills One, Injures Dozens, in Sign of Escalating Campaign Against Israel

Bare Naked Islam has the winning headline: "THIRD INTIFADA HAS BEGUN: Bomb explodes on Jerusalem bus." Also at Pamela's, "Islam Attacks: Explosion Rocks Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded, Dead unknown." And the New York Times reports, FWIW: "Deadly Blast Strikes Outside Jerusalem’s Central Bus Station."

See also Jihad Watch, "Time for Muslims to hand out candy in Gaza: Woman dies of wounds in Jerusalem jihad bombing." And Jerusalem Post, "1 dead, 39 injured in Jerusalem bus station bombing" (via Memeorandum).

Expect updates ...

Woman Dragged Nearly Three-Quarters of a Mile in Tustin

Dragged to her death.

See: "Tustin woman dragged for blocks after being struck by motorist."

Notice the Red Hill Avenue sign at the clip. I pass that off ramp every morning, northbound, on my way to the college. Sad.

No Rally 'Round the Flag Effect on Libya Airstrikes

This is strange. One of the most common phenomena of public opinion and war is for the public to rally dramatically behind the president upon the commitment of U.S. troops to action. But according to polls on President Obama's use of force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, this administration's action is seeing the lowest "rally 'round the the flag" effect compared to at least nine military operations since President Reagan's bombing raid against Gaddafi in 1986. See Gallup, "Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%." Today 47 percent back Obama's authorization of force against Libya, whereas in 1986 a whopping 71 percent supported President Reagan's decision to strike Gaddafi's compound during Operation El Dorado Canyon. As Gallup notes:

Support for the current involvement in Libya is also much lower than support for U.S. airstrikes against Libya in 1986 in response to the Libyan bombing of a German nightclub that killed two American servicemen.

The president is also not benefiting from a personal "rally 'round the flag effect," which is the surge of approval for the president's job handling during the use of military force. David Weigel reports, "No Obama Poll Bounce from Libya." And progressive pollster Nate Silver does his best to put Obama in good standing, "Poll Finds Tentative Support, Potential Risks for Obama on Libya." The explanation for Obama's lackluster numbers could be war fatigue, but the president's indifference and relatively muted public statements can be contrasted unfavorably with previous administrations more comfortable with the projection of U.S. military power. In other words, presidential leadership matters and this White House is lacking.

That said, CBS News has an outlier with some higher levels of support: "Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds." It's probably a flawed sample, given the wide discrepancy, but at least Obambi will have something on which to pin his hopes.

Obama Cuts Short Latin American Sight-Seeing Tour

You can't make this stuff up.

Barack Hussein was planning to tour some Mayan ruins? No doubt that'll play well across the shores of Tripoli, to say nothing of the American midwest. At New York Times, "Obama to Head Home a Bit Early":

For Mr. Obama, who was traveling with his wife, daughters, mother-in-law and a family friend, Wednesday was to be mainly a day of sight-seeing — to Mayan ruins and to the cathedral where Archbishop Oscar Romero is buried, on the anniversary of his assassination during the nation’s civil war of the early 1980s.

And at USA Today, "Global crises overshadow Obama's 2011 agenda":

President Obama returns to the White House today after a six-day trip to Latin America that was intended to focus on jobs, trade and the economy — but the world just wouldn't cooperate.

A partial nuclear meltdown in Japan, a U.S. military operation in Libya, a looming budget showdown in Washington and more have overwhelmed Obama's agenda, raised risks for the nation's fragile economic recovery and opened him to criticism from not only the emerging Republican presidential field but also some congressional Democrats.

Welcome home, Mr. President.

CAIR, Unindicted Hamas-Financer, Sought Millions From Muammar Gaddafi

Nothing to see here. Move along.

From Atlas Shrugs, "Muslim Brotherhood Hate Group CAIR Sought Gaddafi's Money." And IPT, "CAIR Officials Sought Gaddafi Money."

This is despicable. And note this: Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, used a different identity when establishing the Muslim Peace Foundation, a financing group:

The foundation was created in May 2008, corporate records filed in Washington, D.C. show. Officers include Shaw and Awad, who is listed as Nehad Hammad. Awad also used the name Nehad Hammad in CAIR's founding articles of incorporation in 1994. During a 2003 deposition in a civil lawsuit, Awad acknowledged his "full and complete name is Nihad Awad Hammad."

Regime Change the Only Viable Solution in Libya

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "We're (Almost) All Neocons Now." After a primer on the surging popularity of neoconservatism --- from French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Princeton Political Scientist Anne-Marie Slaughter --- Stephens reminds us:

It's easy to forget that Iraq was a war many liberals—Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton among them—once supported, when they could bring themselves to hate Saddam more than they did the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. The latter passion overwhelmed the former for a few years, but eventually the initial logic of their position was bound to reassert itself in some similar scenario.

So it has been with Libya. The moment the Libyans revolted, the U.S. could not have remained silent without doing violence to bedrock American values. And so President Obama said Gadhafi must go. The moment Mr. Obama said that, the administration could not be indifferent to the outcome without risking the wrath of a vengeful Gadhafi, as well as a wider Arab audience that would have felt profoundly betrayed by empty U.S. promises. And so Mr. Obama crossed his fingers that the rebels would win, and win fast.

The moment Gadhafi turned the tide and threatened to massacre his opponents, the administration was bound to try to stop him for purely humanitarian reasons. And so Mr. Obama pressed for international action, even as he hoped the U.S. would not have to be directly involved. The moment it became clear that there would be no such intervention without U.S. involvement, the U.S. became involved.

Now the administration is again at a crossroads as it ponders what to do next. Sooner or later it will figure out that any road that doesn't lead to Gadhafi's death, imprisonment or exile is a cul-de-sac that can only mean the de facto partition of Libya, or Gadhafi's survival, or a long civil war from which the West cannot easily disentangle itself.

Put simply, regime change is the only viable option for resolving the crisis in Libya, a point most sentient observers are beginning to grasp. And regime change is only going to come about if the U.S. presses the matter. So why is the administration so reluctant to acknowledge the obvious?

Compare to Stephen Walt's, "What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance." Walt sounds more and more like a Paulbot. And he's long given realism a bad name. Not only that, his analysis is riddled with clichés. The United States hardly wields its military like hammer, obviously, since untold nails of humanitarian crises remain un-pounded. Indeed, the lost souls of Rwanda haunt the conscience of the West today. Americans can't intervene everywhere, but that's not a likelihood anyway. Walt --- and the anti-military paleocons before him --- simply raves against robust U.S. engagement in the world. It's isolationist and morally bankrupt.

Coalition Airstrikes Hit Libya Again: Tripoli and Surroundings Targeted in Fourth Barrage in Last Several Days

The main story's at LAT, "Coalition Airstrikes Target Tripoli." Reports of civilian causalities at both videos, with the U.S. denying the allegations:

RELATED: There's all kinds of commentary at Memeorandum, but too little hours in the day. Still, I'll try to post on Stephen Walt's essay later.

VIDEO: Sarah Palin Meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

More at Cubachi and Gateway Pundit.

F-15E Fighter Jet Crashes in Libya

Developing news, from New York Times, "American Warplane Crashes in Libya as Ground Fighting Continues." Also at Memeorandum.

Obama Has Thrown American Interests to the Wayside

The best as ever, Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post, "America’s descent into strategic dementia" (via Memeorandum). She pulls no punches, and puts "realists" like Stephen Walt to shame. This is one of those essays best read in full. The second passage on Obama's anti-American foreign policy is classic, but this section below reaffirms the point I made here earlier on the need to be wary of the Libyan opposition:

One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi’s former ministers.

But while these men – who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle – are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC’s 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi’s opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Also, from David Horowitz, "The War Against Israel Has Begun."

Robert Farley Banned Meade? Meade!! Bwahahahaha!!!

OMG this is too rich!

Robert "Moral Abomination" Farley of Lawyers, Gays and Marriage banned Meade, Ann Althouse's husband. Not only did he ban him, he deleted his comments! "Candy-assed" is putting it mildly! As Ann notes:

I don't link to them anymore, but I'll note that they are getting challenged about deleting all of Meade's old comments. They are trying to argue that all those comments were spam that needed to be removed. But the bloggers and commenters over there had interacted with Meade. You don't interact with spam. A step up from spam is "troll." But everyone knows not to feed the troll. Why did they go back and forth with Meade if he was a troll? Their interaction is the evidence that he was not a troll. Robert Farley simply became exasperated and embarrassed when Meade outwrote him, and he destroyed the material that made him look bad. He's like a scientist who destroys his data after his conclusions are questioned. The obvious presumption in the case of destruction of evidence is that it hurt your case. Of course, the evidence of their interaction with Meade is still there, and that evidence also, as I've just explained, is evidence against them. What colossal losers!

And here's Jason Van Steenwyk in the comments at LGM:

Bad form.

Petty, amateurish, juvenile and unprofessional. Particularly the vindictive deletion of Meade’s old posts.

What are you, an obnoxious 15 year old girl or something?

And the “pedigree” remark.

Geez.

Follow the links back and check out the pathetic rationalization from Moral Abomination Farley. This is really just wow!

Sarah Palin Meets With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Yid With Lid has the video from Governor Palin's visit to the Temple Mount yesterday.

And just in from Los Angeles Times, "Sarah Palin, in Jerusalem, Affirms Her Support for Israel":

Laying a foundation for a prospective presidential bid, Sarah Palin wrapped up an abbreviated tour of India and Israel on Monday, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and declaring her fidelity to the Israeli people.

Earlier in her two-day sojourn to Israel, Palin toured the sacred Western Wall and its adjacent tunnels in Jerusalem's Old City, and appeared to contend that Israelis were too deferential to Arab concerns.

"Why are you apologizing all the time?" the former Alaska governor asked her guides at the wall, according to the Jerusalem Post, after being told that Jews were not allowed to pray openly on the Temple Mount and about the Arab riots that followed Netanyahu's opening of an exit from the tunnels in 1996.

Palin's drive-by trip to Asia and the Middle East were viewed as a means to bolster her foreign policy credentials at a time when the 2012 Republican landscape is beginning to take some shape. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced the formation of an exploratory committee Monday.

RTWT.

Media Ignores Union Thuggery

Glenn Reynolds has an essay at the New York Post, "Uncivil Disobedience."

And a vlog from Ann Althouse, "What I think of the threat against me, blogging the protests, and how the recall elections can benefit the GOP." Ann compares union thugs to terrorists just after 40 seconds. Yeah, they're "just like al Qaeda," although how about Hamas or the Taliban --- they'll slit your effin' throat given the chance:

RELATED: At Wisconsin State Journal, "Analysis shows emails to Walker favored budget repair bill" (via Memeorandum and Nice Deb).

Obama's Liberal Internationalist Intervention

Ross Douthat is getting to be like his old self! This is an excellent essay, "A Very Liberal Intervention." The key to remember here is that "liberal" has some dual usage in this piece. Most folks think of "liberal" as referring to left-of-center politics domestically, but in the discourse of international relations, "liberal" is construed more in the classical economic sense of markets and institutions. Political liberals at home promote liberal institutionalism abroad, which means a reliance on international institutions and the submission of U.S. power to the constraining effect of multilateral organizations. The United Nations is the epitome of "liberalism" in both senses of the word. It supports a leftist agenda through an internationalist regime of supranational power. If that's at all confusing then folks will understand why "progressive" is a far superior label for leftists. The power of the individual or the autonomy of states is reduced either way. In any case, check out Douthat's argument:

In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

Keep reading at the link above. Douthat lays out a nice analysis of the pros and cons, although he misses one key objection to the administration's policy: dithering. The month-long delay of action is not the result of the need to build consensus with allies. It's the result of Obama's indecisiveness and indifference. And readers should not read this as a blanket endorsement of the intervention. Like Egypt, it's not clear what what kind of government is likely to come to power. Extremists groups are on the rise globally, and it's radical Islamism at the state level that's going to be our biggest challenge over time (not just transnational terrorist groups). Had Obama acted sooner the U.S. would have had more opportunity to promote democrats over Islamists. By now though, Islamist extremists have endorsed the rebel action and made plans for regime change. Here then is where the White House is failing American security, and it's a good bet that Hillary Clinton announced her eventual departure for this very reason.

In any case, I don't normally credit him, but Josh Marshall has a thoughtful piece on all of this, so what the heck? Some additional thoughts to consider, at the least: "Just a Bad, Bad Idea" (via Memeorandum).

Rule 5 Veena Malik

Well, here's a chance to get in some Rule 5 hotness along with some counter-jihad blogging.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Hot Chick Rips Mufti A New One!":

And the ladies are putting in an excellent Rule 5 showing:

* American Perspectives, "Rihanna looks gorgeous in Vogue. Well done, Annie Leibovitz."

* Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Natalie Gulbis and March Madness Sweater Puppies."

* Teresa's Blog, "Rule 5 - Kisses with Grace Kelly."

And see the other friends of American Power: Amusing Bunni's Musings, Astute Bloggers, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Eye of Polyphemus, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, Pirate's Cove, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, Yankee Phil, and Zion's Trumpet.

Plus, top it off with Theo's Bedtime Totty.

And also a big thanks to Proof Positive, who once again has been doing some great roundups.

BONUS: PA Pundits International has some great breaking news and analysis.

As always, drop your link in the comments to be added to the roundups.

Ralph Nader, Formerly America's Premier Consumer Advocate, Now Just a Run-of-the-Mill Obama-Hating Antiwar Communist

I'd say "Bush-hating antiwar communist," but G.W. long ago split the scene. This is Obambi's war, and he's starting to rouse the deeper layers of the neo-communist contingents. And if it were just Daniel Ellsberg that'd be one thing. He's been known as a fellow-traveler for some time now. But Nader was the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, winning something like 3 million votes nationwide. He's a reformer who's purportedly done much to improve life for Americans. Say it ain't so Ralph! You're making Noam Chomsky proud with that rant about war crimes, sheesh! Just don't go nuclear on Israel, will ya? Consistency might at least help your legacy. But if you go aggro Jew-hater on Jerusalem that's it. You'll be remembered by anti-Semitism instead of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Or wait, been there already, Ralph? "Criticizing Israel is Not Anti-Semitism." Okay, fine. I can see why you're so well liked over at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!

Anyway, see the full report at The Hill (via Memeorandum):

Obama Plays Soccer While Allies Launch Second Day of Airstrikes on Libya

Thinking ahead, the GOP's 2012 presidential hopefuls should have a mother load of material to hammer Obambi's foreign policy. Seriously. On Brazil, I can't see how this is good. Maybe the White House might hire some non-homosexuals for social protocol. Firm up the messaging, you know. This just doesn't seem to be setting the right tone. At Marooned in Marin, "While Attacks Are Made Against Libya, Obama Plays Soccer With Kids in Rio," And Weasel Zippers, "President Obama Plays Soccer in Rio":

And here's the word, on Twitter:

Where would John F. Kennedy be right now? In his office at the White House surrounded by his advisers.

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "Bombing campaign in Libya targets Kadafi's air, ground forces," and also Memeorandum.

Progressive Democrats Challenge Constitutionality of Military Action Against Libya

Well, it's not like we didn't see this coming. The only problem, again, is that these are not "liberal" Democrats. They're communists, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus --- Michael Capuano, Barbara Lee, Jerald Nadler, Maxine Waters --- and pathetic neo-communist hangers-on, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich. See Politico, in any case, "Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action" (via Memeorandum). These are the reflexively antiwar asshats I mentioned previously, but William Jacobson's got the lowdown on the folks from Daily Kos, who seemed quite the interventionists at the news of the attacks: "Strange Days - Daily Kos Takes On A Martial Look."

Sadly No! Tintin Attacks Community Colleges as 'Shitty'

Progressive asshat Tintin at Sadly No! took to Twitter to slam community colleges as "shitty," and also to slam me personally as lacking, or something. The Twitter exhange is here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The key screencaps pretty much tell it all, in any case. Community colleges are obviously not "shitty," hence my use of quotation marks. Tintin's a liar, and not too bright, Sadly No!

These are totally unoriginal attacks, by the way. Demon TBogg has long slurred junior colleges, and folks might remember the progressive demonosphere's "I can't believe he's really a professor" attacks on this blog: "You're a Professor, Really?"

Sigh. Progressives, they don't really care about the poor or disadvantaged. They care only about leveraging their totalitarian agenda --- and enabling terrorist savages.