Putin Syria Behind Him

Vladimir Putin announced that most of the Russians troops sent to Syria are being withdrawn.  Is that good news or bad news? 

Let's start by stating the obvious.  It may be no news.  Until we actually have confirmation that any of the Russian troops have left Syria without being replaced, we have no basis for believing Putin's announcement.  After all, in just the last few years Putin has told the world that Russia had no troops in Crimea right before those troops (which didn't exist) took over the region and Russia annexed it.  Then Putin told the world that there were no Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.  Those non-existent troops fought a war against the Ukrainian armed forces ever since then.  Putin also told us that Syria had agreed to divest itself of all chemical weapons, but the Assad forces (and ISIS too) have both used chemical weapons since then.  Let's just say that Putin's announcement of the withdrawal indicates a possible course of action by Russia.

So if the troops are really going, why is that happening?  Putin's goal in entering Syria was to support the Assad regime and to guarantee that Russia kept is naval base at Latakia no matter what happened.  The Russian forces smashed the Sunni rebels and also hit ISIS a few times.  Russia also got to establish a big new air base in Syria.  And, perhaps most important, for the first time since 1973, Russia became a major player in the Middle East.  With that accomplished, is Putin just taking his soldiers home.  That makes no sense.  Having re-entered the region, why would Russia slink out?  Having obtained a local air base, why would Putin abandon it now?  Having helped Assad, why would Putin leave and seriously weaken the Assad forces' position?

Ralph Peters says in the New York Post that the Russians are leaving because they have realized that Syria is already controlled by Iran and the Russian efforts were only helping the Iranians (who are not friends of the Russians.)  Maybe.

It could also be that the Russians are just leaving so that they will not have to participate in the fight against ISIS.  Russia has a major problem with Islamic terrorism and Putin knows that problem will be much worse if his troops are attacking the caliphate.

Chaos is the normal state of the Middle East, and Putin's move is certainly chaotic.  Maybe Putin is just trying to fit in.  It's as good a reason as any.

 

Farewell to Marco

Marco Rubio suspended his campaign after tonight's loss in Florida.  Rubio is one of the good guys.  It's too bad he did not get more support.  He won three primary/caucus elections, so he did better than all the GOP candidates other than Trump and Cruz.  There is no prize, however, for third place. 

(Okay, before someone writes to tell me that there are still three candidates, let me add that Rubio outperformed Kasich.  The Ohio governor is running more on a delusion than anything else.)

There's an old saying that the voters get what they deserve.  I don't believe it.  America does not deserve a choice between Hillary and the Donald.  There's still Cruz, but does anyone really believe he still has a chance?  It's a very slim chance at best, and most likely he is just running out the clock before Trump wins.

It still won't be a difficult choice to make in November.  Hillary is a dishonest self-important and greedy person whose policies would hurt the American economy and damage our standing in the world.  Trump, at least, is a dishonest, self-important and greedy person whose policies would restore strong economic growth and improve America's standing in the world.

So No Surprises

There have been no surprises in the primaries Tuesday.  Hillary beat Sanders mostly everywhere.  Yawn.  Kasich won Ohio.  Yawn.  Trump won Florida handily and ran close races with Cruz everywhere else.  Yawn.

So what was interesting?  For me, the key metric is that there were more than a million more voters in the GOP primaries than the Democrat races.  Only in Illinois did more Democrats vote than Republicans.  Is this a harbinger of massive GOP turnout in November and a lack of interest from Democrats?  There's no way to tell.  We do know that throughout the entire election season, the GOP has had a great many more voters that the Democrats every week..

Let's hope that this is a bad omen for Hillary.

Now The Truth Leaks Out About Flint -- US EPA Wouldn't Help

I've watched the ongoing story about the disaster with the water supply in Flint Michigan.  For anyone who doesn't know, Flint switched its water source away from Detroit and the new source contained substances that eroded the water pipes and put high levels of lead in the city's water.  The media and the Democrats have been bashing the governor of Michigan for all this, even though he was not involved with the decision to switch the water source for the city.  The mayor of Flint has come through relatively unscathed, even though the decision was very much a local one.  The big focus of the story has not been on the original stupid decision to change water sources, but rather on the failure to remedy the problem once government became aware of it.  Why didn't the state act?  That line could be the refrain of a song sung every night on MSNBC.  Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have also been pushing that line.  There have also been some who have blamed the EPA for failing to do anything, but the same media that bashes the state government has little to say about the EPA.  The Democrat candidates are likewise silent about the EPA.

Today an internal memo from a regional director of the EPA about Flint leaked into the news.  Last September EPA's regional chief for water programs Debbie Baltazar sent a memo about Flint to some of her people.  She downplays doing anything to help Flint with this problem.  But here's the kicker:  this official of Obama's EPA says this:  "I'm not so sure Flint is the community we want to go out on a limb for."

So the federal EPA knew about the problem and decided not to help.  Why?  And why is it that the media is not covering this? 

I Know You've Been Waiting For This

Okay, the big news is in.  The Northern Marianas Islands chose Donald Trump in the GOP caucus there today.  Trump won all 9 of the delegates to the GOP convention in Cleveland this summer; he got roughly three quarters of the vote.  The other quarter went to Ted Cruz.

But here's the question:  there were fewer than 500 voters in this tiny territory.  They get 9 delegates.  That's one delegate for each 50 votes.  Later today we will get the results from Florida where over 3 million people are expected to vote in the GOP primary.  That state gets 99 delegates or one delegate per 30,000 voters.  That means that the votes in the Northern Marianas count 600 times more than the ones in Florida. 

Remember "one man, one vote"? 

The Trump Issue

A friend of mine asked me today how I felt about Donald Trump.  My friend knows that I have not been supporting Trump, but he asked me if I feared what would happen if Trump became president.  I don't intend to recount the ensuing conversation, but I think it's worthwhile to note the question.  For the most part, the question is proof that the attacks on Trump by the media, the left and many Republicans are taking a toll on his candidacy.

Let's start with the obvious.  There's no reason to fear a Trump presidency.  The "worries" about Trump are mainly products of the over the top attacks on him in recent days.  Take the issue of violence and the confrontations at the Chicago Trump rally the other day.  The essence of that story is that a large number of protestors gathered outside the venue in Chicago and threatened those who were coming to the rally.  Upon the advice of the police and the Secret Service, Trump cancelled his event.  To say the least, it's hard to blame Trump for whatever violence there was in Chicago.  That violence came from the over the top protesters who tried to deny Trump and his fans the right to speak in public. 

But what about Trump possibly paying for the legal defense of the guy who punched a demonstrator at a Trump rally?  Doesn't that mean Trump is promoting violence?  It's worth noting that the guy who threw the punch is in his late 70's while the "victim" is a young man in his 20's.  So a cranky old guy punched a young guy who was hardly hurt.  He shouldn't have done it, but there are many people who get upset in situations like that.  If Trump helps the guy, it is hardly promoting violence.  Think about it.  What about the organizations that helped defend people arrested for rioting in Ferguson or Baltimore?  Are those organizations promoting violence?  If that's what Trump is doing, then that's what those organizations are doing.

But didn't Trump say things at his rallies that called for violence?  I can't tell you how many hundreds or thousands of events Trump has been to since he first declared his candidacy.  Without a doubt, Trump has said things that would have been better left unsaid.  It's part of the political process and people can repeat the mistakes until the cows come home.  It doesn't make Trump a danger, however.

There is a real danger, however, to our country.  Her name is Hillary Clinton.  She foments hatred and violence, but she does it in a different way.  Hillary promotes class warfare.  Now, to be fair, most people know that Hillary is an inveterate liar, so few people take her at face value.  Nevertheless, it was Hillary who said that the biggest enemy she faces is not ISIS or Iran or some other global threat to America.  No, Hillary identified the biggest enemy as the Republicans.

The real nature of the threat from Hillary, however, is not about violence.  It is that Hillary wants to follow policies that will lead to continuing stagnation and decline of the American nation.  The economy won't grow.  The problem of radical Islamic terror won't be solved.  Many American jobs will be lost in an effort to stop climate change even though none of the steps Hillary wants to take will alter the trajectory of the climate in any way.  Disrespect for and undermining of police and other law enforcement individuals will continue with the result that crime will soar.  Essentially everyone in the country will suffer as a result.

It's important that we not be taken in by these latest attacks on Trump.  The danger is Hillary, not the Donald.

It's Just Water Over the Dam

There's a lot of talk in recent days about an Iranian cyber attack in 2013 on a flood control dam in New York.  According to reports, hackers from Iran sabotaged the dam after opening the flood control gates.  None of the reports mention casualties or even property damage, but the impact of the cyber attack is clear.  If the Iranians can open dams in suburban New York City, maybe they can open dams like the Hoover Dam in the Southwest.  Iran could hack its way into shutting down hydroelectric power, limiting drinking water, and flooding towns and cities.  And that's just the dams.

What I don't understand is why there is so much talk about this now.  We know and have known for years that China, Russia and Iran have been trying to hack into our infrastructure systems.  The North Koreans do this too.  So too do all manner of terrorist groups.  We all hear about the problem, but nothing ever seems to get done about it.  Think about it.  When is the last time you heard president Obama talk about cyber security, and much more important, when is the last time you remember Obama actually doing anything to harden our systems?  Don't take too long thinking.  Obama has done virtually nothing to help stop the cyber attacks or prevent them in the future.

This is just another of those issues on which most Americans are not really informed.  Sure, we may all get interested in the problem when the first major attack happens, but then it will be too late.