Lots of news from the war in Iran, much of it in video form.
One reason I do these updates is that the vast majority of MSM reporting is of such poor quality. It’s all government talking heads said this or critics of Trump said that. In other words, lazy reporting crap no one cares about.
Back before American journalists became self-licking ice cream cones, war reporting used to include maps, unit movements, logistics, combat reports from journalists embedded with U.S. units, etc. The BBC still seems to do a little of that, but I’m not seeing that from American outlets, maybe because it’s hard work. They don’t even seem to be bothering to tell ChatGPT to do it for them.
Hence these roundups to fill the gap.
As a brief snapshot of the dysfunction at the highest levels of Iranian government, here’s the President of Iran saying “Sorry about all the droning, it won’t happen again,” and the IRGC saying “Shut the hell up, you weak little bitch!”
To many, it seems like an end-of-days scenario: Qatar and Israel on the same team.
Who would have thought? In September, Israel attacked in Qatar, targeting terrorist leaders the Gulf state was housing. But here we are. After five days of war with Iran, the Iranians have succeeded in putting Israel and Qatar on the same team – to say nothing of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and even Saudi Arabia – all countries targeted over the past five days by Iranian missiles and drones.
By some estimates, Iran has fired more missiles and drones at Gulf states combined than at Israel.
What Iran may have done is something Israel has long struggled to achieve diplomatically: place Israel and several Sunni Arab states on the same side of a regional conflict. By striking the Gulf states directly, Tehran has widened the war in a way that forces governments across the region to reconsider where their interests truly lie.
Within the first 48 hours, Tehran launched missiles and drones not only toward Israel but toward every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council: the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. What might initially have appeared to be a confrontation between Iran and the US and Israel quickly transformed into something wider – a regional conflict touching key Sunni Arab states.
And it was not only countries that have agreements with Israel that were targeted – the UAE and Bahrain – but also countries that have tried to maintain good relations with Iran, such as Qatar and Oman. Even Turkey announced on Wednesday that an Iranian missile was downed as it headed toward its airspace. By going after these countries, Iran is signaling that it wants everyone in the region to formally pick a side.
Tellingly, the strikes in the Gulf states were aimed largely at civilian targets rather than solely at US bases and facilities located in those countries. The strikes went far beyond American installations and hit airports, hotels, and oil infrastructure.
Why? The conventional wisdom is that Tehran hopes to sow chaos in the region and pressure those countries now under attack to lean on Washington to call off the campaign before the situation spirals even further out of control.
Having two aircraft carriers launching strikes at Iran evidently wasn’t enough, as the USS George H. W. Bush is now poised to join the party, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford. Obviously you need ships named after Republican presidents to win wars. If you had the USS Barack Obama, it could only drop pallets of cash, and the USS Bill Clinton could only hit on underage Iranian girls…
Grand Ayatollah Abdollah Javadi-Amoli had issued a fatwa against President Trump, “says shedding blood of Zionists and Trump is mandatory.” Sounds like someone wants to be moved higher on the drone list.
Since Iran has hit the oil facilities on Persian gulf nations, Israel hits oil storage facilities near Tehran. Those burning symbols on this Liveuamap snapshot are where airstrikes have hit oil facilities in and around Tehran.
For all the talk of Kurdish forces entering Iran, Trump has said he’s told them not to. But we have numerous reports of Israeli jets hitting targets like IRCG posts along the border and police stations in Iranian Kurdistan.
Reports of blinding Iranian satellites:
🇮🇷🇮🇱 As expected, the IDF claims to have targeted the ground control station for Iran's Russian-built Khayyam imaging satellite. I suspect that this is the first time that a satellite ground control station has been targeted in wartime.https://t.co/gL42aeVkc9https://t.co/Gx4kUodxXB
Possibly three new U.S. weapons have been seen in Epic Fury:
A black-coated Tomahawk variant, possibly for stealth.
The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). This is a new Lockheed Martin missile to replace ATACMS.
Lots of lessons learned from the Russo-Ukrainian War and Ukraine’s use of Patriot there. Missiles are getting intercepted, but Shahed drones are still leaking through.
In addition to the B-2 and B-52, the B-1 is also hitting targets in Iran. I think this is the first war in which all the Bs were hitting targets…
Suchomimus does damage assessment on Iranian naval assets and other targets hit on both sides:
Azerbaijan closes the border crossing with Iran to cargo:
Iranian truck drivers had already started staging strikes against the regime even before the crossing shutdown. “Inside, 400,000 drivers have cut off contact and are known to be against the regime. While outside, thousands of trucks and drivers are stuck at sealed borders. This double squeeze means the collapse of the state’s control over the economy. The truck drivers mutiny is not just blocking roads. It is breaking the entire industrial backbone from steel to prochemicals, from food to logistics.”
Mark Felton asks whether Iranian missiles can hit London? Answer: Probably not.
“We can probably say that yes, Iran has at least one missile that has the legs to reach the UK [the Simorgg SLV, use to launch satellites into orbit], but not the systems to deliver a warhead successfully. At present, it is technically impossible for Iran to bombard the UK.”
With primary voting upon us tomorrow, it looks like I’ve run out of campaign to cover. Here then is a quick, scatter-shot batch of snippets on various races:
Wendy Davis is super popular…just not in Texas. “27 percent of the money Davis raised in the last filing quarter came from donors outside Texas, compared to just 2 percent of Abbott’s total.”
In the Comptroller race, Glenn Hegar seems to have have racked up the lion’s share of conservative endorsements, and is also winning the money race over Harvey Hilderbran (who has mostly racked up the endorsements of business groups, newspapers, and “shill” groups like Steve Holtz’s “Conservative Republicans of Texas“). 2010 Gubernatorial hopeful Debra Medina is also polling strongly despite having raised relatively little money, I didn’t think she was ready for primetime in 2010, but Comptroller is probably a great spot for a Libertarian. I’d vote Hegar over Medina, but I’d vote both over Hilderbran.
The Agricultural Commissioner’s race is easier to narrow down with who not to vote for, namely J. Allen Carnes, who voted Democratic until 2012, and “donated to Texas Democrats Pete Gallego, Henry Cuellar, and Ciro Rodriguez.” Also who to vote against: Eric Opiela, AKA Joe Straus’ lawyer. By contrast, Sid Miller seems to have racked up an impressive list of endorsements.
Lt. Governor race roundup. if the Chronicle paywall won’t let you in, search for the first sentence on Google news. Here’s some damning-with-faint-praise for Todd Staples: “‘Staples becomes a plausible alternative if you don’t have Dewhurst in the race,’ Henson said. ‘My impression is that he is well-liked in the Capitol special-interest community.'” Ouch!
Robert Caro’s The Passage of Power, the latest volume in his acclaimed Lyndon Baines Johnson biography, came out May of last year, but Garry Wills just got around to reviewing it in The New York Review of Books.
The sad thing is that for the first few thousand words, it’s a really interesting review. Caro’s book is about how Johnson’s and Robert F. Kennedy’s mutual hatred for each other drove much of the Johnson’s Presidency. By this point, anyone beyond Democratic hagiographers know that both LBJ and RFK were nasty pieces of work, and it’s no surprise that both of them loathed each other. Caro is a good historian, I’m sure the book is quite fascinating, and the review conveys its central points well.
Then, alas, the Garry Wills kicks in.
For those who can’t lay their hands on The Field Guide to Liberal Fossils, Wills is a historian who started out as a protege of William F. Buckley but then started moving steadily to the left and has kept moving ever since. He came down with a full-blown case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and penned one of the nastiest hit pieces on Romneyafter he lost. He has such a bad case of it he can’t resist getting in digs at Bush43 while reviewing a book that takes place 30+ years before he entered office.
“He [LBJ] also tried to work the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, requesting an office in the White House with a bulked-up staff for military and security issues. He was trying, we now see, to have the parallel presidency that Dick Cheney secured for himself under a compliant George Bush.”
This is the sort of wacky “Cheney is the puppetmaster” conspiracism that had the nutroots convinced that “Fitzmas” was going to result the wholesale indictment of the Bush Administration for treason before The Great Fizzle. A professional historian believing in it is akin to treating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a real document rather than a Czarist fake.
Honorable mention goes to the line “Americans hated communism so much that they thought every Russian was a threat.” Yeah, funny what an ideology killing 100 million people and having some 5,000 nuclear warheads pointed at you by an evil empire will do to dampen your enthusiasm.
At some indefinite point in the future, I hope to read all of Caro’s volumes on LBJ. But I see no need to read anything by Garry Wills ever again.
“Homebuilder Confidence in U.S. BLANK Fell in February”
Having trouble? Try again with the first sentence
“Confidence among U.S. homebuilders BLANK dropped in February from a more than six-year high, a sign the real-estate market will take time to accelerate.”
If you’ve been reading Instapundit for any length of time, you know exactly what the word replaced with BLANK is. And that word is “unexpectedly.”
Gee, how could anyone possibly have seen that continued high unemployment and an economy that is shrinking might negatively impact the housing market? (And of course, when the economy shrank, the shrinkage happened “unexpectedly.”)
Obama and friends keep trying and trying neo-Keynesian pump-priming and keep getting the same results: economic stagnation. While trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of madness, that doesn’t matter to them, since it allows them to continue the payoffs to cronies and interest groups that keep the Big Government Class in power (and rolling in taxpayer dough). Germany and Estonia performed no or minimal “stimulus” deficit spending and their economies are growing again. Obama and congressional Democrats have taken the opposite tack: Keep pouring money down the big government rathole and hope that results this year won’t be identical to the last four. My prediction: higher deficits, continued high unemployment and continued economic stagnation.
And each and every negative economic indicator the media will report as arriving “unexpectedly.”
The Libyan embassy had repeatedly asked for additional security and were refused In fact, their security was reduced. “We couldn’t even keep what we had.”
Watching and listening to Romney now, who do you agree with more: Mitt Romney, or reporters sounding outraged at his criticisms of the Obama Administration?
Both the Obama Administration and their lapdog media surrogates seem far more interested in defeating Obama’s political opponent than America’s Jihadest enemies, or telling the American people the truth.
Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.
Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.
One again, the New York Times thinks Republicans are too stupid to figure out the con. If they’re going to be that absurdly biased, why not just cut out the middleman and poll Obama for America staffers directly?
Remember: The business model of The New York Times is to envelop liberals in a soft, warm, comforting cocoon of reassurance that their ideas and leaders are popular. You saw this in 2010, when it dangerously blinded them to the coming Republican wave until too late. The same patterns is repeating itself this year.
Remember how how incredibly tight the 1980 election was? How Ronald Reagan managed to edge Jimmy Carter at the last minute despite losing Texas and New York?
Probably not, mainly because that didn’t happen. But as Jeffrey Lord’s story makes clear, that was the narrative the New York Times was pushing most of the fall, and they had “polls” to back it up.
In the pantheon of lies, damn lies, and statistics, polls aren’t even as valid as statistics. At this point, polls by the usual MSM suspects (NYT, PPP, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, Newsweek, NPR, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, just to name a few) aren’t designed to gauge the race, they’re designed to encourage Democrats and discourage Republicans. They are, as Lord notes and Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee admitted to Ed Rollins, offering up “in kind contributions” to the Democrats.
So let’s take a brief look at the many ways in which the MSM is distorting polls for the benefit of Obama and the Democrats.
Dick Morris (who knows a thing or two about polling) thinks the idea that an Obama victory is in the offing is bunk. “All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.” He also notes that even the skewed polls show Obama at less than 50%, and “the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.”
By one analysis, pollsters are oversampling Democrats by an average of 6.1%.
Jay Cost notes that “polls that do a poor job of differentiating enthusiastic non-voters from enthusiastic voters are going to overestimate Obama’s margin.”
Every week you see the media going to bat for Obama, and every week we see more evidence of lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats compared to 2008. 2010 did happen, no matter how much the media would like to pretend it didn’t. The Tea Party hasn’t gone away, nor suddenly decided that they like Obama’s free-spending ways after all. The fundamentals of our ailing economy and staggering unemployment haven’t gone away either. And remember: Republicans now outnumber Democrats in party identification.
There’s a lot better chance that this election’s results will look like 1980 than that they will look like 2008.
This is the time of year when the political world is awash in polls. Some otherwise sensible Republicans take a look at those polls and go “Oh my God! Obama is up by 2! Or 5! He got a big convention bounce!”
I could wade into the murky swamps of different polling companies, different methodologies, different biases, the problem with cell phone vs. landline samples, partisan weighting screens, the comparison between citizens, registered voters and likely voters, or a dozen other variables. But I’m not going to.
Instead, one piece of advice, and one explanation.
The advice: Chill.
The explanation: Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with 52.9% of the popular vote to 45.7% for John McCain, the best popular vote margin of any Democratic Presidential contender since Lyndon Baines Johnson captured 61.1% of the vote in 1964. (People forget that Bill Clinton, for all his retrospective popularity, never broke 50% of the popular vote; Al Gore got 48.4% of the vote while losing in the electoral college in 2000.) Ignoring (for now) the electoral college and minor changes in the composition of voters, that means only 4% of the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 need to switch their vote for Mitt Romney to win.
Do you think Obama might be 4% less popular than he was four years ago? Perhaps among those who have lost their jobs? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Obama is less popular than he was four years ago, his inability to fill campaign events the way he used to being one, and numerous elected Democrats in tough reelection fights avoiding the DNC being another. So who are you going to believe: MSM polls or your lying eyes?
The media is desperately trying to pretend that 2010 never happened, or that it was an aberration.
The polls are part of the media trying desperately to maintain what Instapundit Glenn Reynolds calls “preference falsification,” a willingness on the part of the political and media establishment to manufacture a false consensus that (in this case) liberal policies and politicians are popular. When it comes to the current election, the question might be most crassly boiled down to “Do you support Obama, or are you a racist?” In 2010 and now we’re finally seeing a “preference cascade” of people unwilling to buy that liberal narrative. The walls are finally coming down.
Which is not to say the election is in the bag for Romney. There’s still a lot of hard work to be done, and a lot of work to make sure Republicans and anti-Obama independents get to the polls, especially in swing states. But there’s no reason to get worked up over each and every little poll. Time is not on Obama’s side.
Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
