Monday, December 28, 2009
Our DHS Mistress, Janet Napolitano, initially claimed the "system worked."
Not according to anyone who hasn't sampled the PC-Koolaid:
Once again, as with the Ft Hood shooter, numerous red flags were missed or ignored. (I love Holton's term "Islamikaze").
Despite Napolitano's recanting of her initial statement, any official response will mean only one thing--more inconveniences for law abiding travelers.
Mark Steyn rolls-in:
Mark also rolls-in on our lack of real progress in our anti-terrorism security:
Michelle Malkin lambastes Napolitano:
(At the time of this posting, I was unable to log on to Debbie Schlussel's website).
Thanks to Jasper Schuringa, who jumped over some passengers and subdued Mutallab, (not the DHS system), we didn't have a Christmas tragedy.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
David Cable shot Deputy Mundell and Sgt Hausner, but was killed when the officers returned fire.
Here's the story from the morning after (22 Dec 09) in the Seattle Times:
Police officers in this area are stressed out and for good reason. Here's today's story, also from the Seattle Times:
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Her and her partner-in-crime were arrested for securities fraud back in October.
NY Post, among other news agencies, had the details:
Yesterday, "Martha F. Stewart" and Raj Rajaratam, were in court yesterday and pleaded innocent:
I have fond memories of Danielle and her two friends at the time, Miylae (sp) and Jackie. My friend Harry & I met them while on a trip to Quebec with the high school French Club. Since this was our second trip to Quebec, we showed the girls around town in gentlemanly fashion. Harry and I were seniors and the girls were freshmen, so we didn't want to attend our graduation wearing prison jumpsuits. Although, Danielle may have to get use to such fashionable attire.
I hope Jackie and Miylae are doing better with their lives.
Monday, December 21, 2009
And then there's VDH, comparing California's nightmare to Copenhagen's dream:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
According to most analysts, Iran now has a key component in it's nuclear program--and it's not for peaceful purposes:
This article garnered a couple noteworthy comments from friends:
Yeah, as the article says, there is exactly ONE use for a neutron initiator and it ain't baking cookies!
I see based on Obama's speech to the Nobel folks that he is starting to realize that his rainbow and unicorn foreign policy is not only not working, but has really emboldened our enemies. Now maybe he will spread some of the good old Chicago style politics around the place for a change we can believe in.
From Comrade Karla:
I could go for some Sean Connery "Chicago Way."
We've been dealing with revisionist history since the '60s. Now no subject, even math, is immune from being used as a tool to indoctrinate our young. From Michelle Malkin's website (posted 11 Dec 09):
The above link is a follow-on story to this one posted on 8 Dec 09:
This is no better than "Palestinian Math:"
If Achmed (the up & coming terrorist) has 17 rounds for his AK-47 magazine, how many more rounds will he need to kill 30 Zionists?
One of my friends dug-up a quote from Abraham Lincoln: "What is taught in the classroom today will be tomorrow's government."
God help us!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
From Debbie Schlussel's post, 11 Dec 09:
..."it is a holiday of triumph of good versus evil and Jews versus their oppressors." (Ruth S. King of the Americans for a Safe Israel).
While I'm not Jewish, this sounds like my kind of holiday!
Here's a link to what would be my favorite Menorah:
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Commentators on the right and left are not happy with this.
First from the left:
Days prior to the announcement, Michael Moore sent Obama pleading with him not to be a "War President."
Now from the right:
Ralph Peters of the NY Daily Post rolls-in.
From somewhere in the center, Thomas Friedman of the NY Times:
And since I'm not a fan of Michael Moore, here's a post from "Uncle Jimbo" from Blackfive lambastes some of Moore's assumptions & outrageous comments:
The impending "surge" in Afghanistan sparked a lot of message traffic among my friends:
This is a pretty good summation. Of course, Ralph has not really espoused a coherent counter-strategy. Sad thing is that there probably is no right answer, but some are certainly worse than others (witness the final result of a bazillion hours of indecision).
I'm not unhappy with the idea of a surge-type strategy. But adding expiration dates is always stupid (at least publicly--they can talk about it all they want in private, and probably should). It's like having FDR say in his Pearl Harbor speech "We will win through to absolute victory…as long as it doesn't take longer than January 1943."
One of the big reasons the surge worked in iraq is because it showedthat the U.S. was resolved to stick it out to the end. That broke the logjam and allowed the Iraqi populace and the Sunni insurgents to jumpon the bandwagon and crush al Qaeda and the Shiite insurgency. Obamahas utterly negated that angle by putting a deadline on things. He really screwed himself on that, because if he does not pull out on thisschedule, he will be beat over the head with it in the 2012 elections byBOTH sides. If he DOES pull out on schedule, and things are not goingwell, he will be the president of defeat. (the third possibility, thateverything in Afghanistan will be resovled by then is not bloody likelyand not worth considering). I don't always agree with Ralph, but he is pretty much spot on in thiscase. When memory of Obama's glorious speech fades and reality sets in,he is going to be in real trouble (and so are the troops deployed toAfghanistan).
I'm far more worried about them than I am him. It's clear from some of the post-speech comments in news articles that those who are on the deployment list know all to well what a s**t sandwich this is likely to be.Tom Friedman (an erratic, but sometimes spot-on commentator) did a piece on why he felt this surge effort was not worth it and why. I didn't agree with it. But it was honest and not completely illogical. I'd have more respect for the president if he'd at least take a definitive stand, defend it, and stop trying to have his cake and eat it too. But he can't. None of them can. They're too fixated on the next election cycle and that drives all.I suppose that's what separates a politician from a statesman. Lord knows we don't have many statesmen around these days.
I don't think a surge will work anyway...Afghanistan is not Iraq: Iraqis are urban, Afghans are tribalIraq is a flat desert with good infrastructure, Afghanistan is amountainous mess with hardly even any roadsIraq did not have a significant cross-border terror issue (Irannothwithstanding), Afghanistan and Pakistan are interlocked Iraq had 3 major groupings of people, Afghanistan has many Iraq has a history of central leadership, Afghanistan is a political wreck. Iraq allows easy access by land, sea, and air; it is a bitch to getanything into AfghanistanEtc. None of this bodes well for any strategy.
I could be wrong but I'm not buying the exit strategy talk. It doesn't make logistical sense - by the time we get all of the troops in place it will be time to start pulling them out. Also, the sheer inertia generated by this type of commitment generally doesn't permit that type of approach. It's like Clinton talking about our how our troops were going to be in Bosnia for a no more than a year or Eisenhower saying in the 1950s that if we still had troops in Germany in ten years then we will have failed or for that matter Obama's campaign talk about getting out of Iraq. That kind of talk is all well and good but it never works that way in the real world. The fact is, regardless of what was said last night, President Obama has just created significant commitment of a large number of American troops and unless the situation goes so far down the shitter that the public demands a pullout or an implosion in Pakistan means we can no longer support a large footprint logistically, we are going to be in Afghanistan for a very long time. With regard to the exit strategy nonsense, I think somebody (James Jones, Bob Gates, Rahm Emanuel, etc) told Obama that he needed to check that box in his speech so he did because thanks to Colin Powell, whenever a President is going to commit American troops to a mission, there always has to be an exit strategy - I also think this was a way for Obama to cover himself with the stooges on the left who are against this. Whether it will work or not I don't know.
Ralph has been erratic from time to time, that's certain. He may be talking to people who have been telling him what they think is going to happen based on their experiences working with the new admin; or maybe he's just bitter. He is consistently harsh, however, but not always logically consistent. Perhaps he's taking the Prez at his word on this and assuming the worst--wouldn't be the first commentator to do this.
The Weekly Standard opinion was interesting in that it notes that Obama is now the first Democratic President to do a commitment like this since LBJ, which surely is some measure of actual change when you look back at Democratic presidents since then. I'm sure he's hoping he doesn't end up with a 1968 situation on his hands, though it's certainly possible.
I wasn't able to post the news yesterday due to internet troubles.
Today, Darcus Allen, the alledged "wheels man" appeared in court:
The above link contains several other links for complete coverage of this tragedy.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Those of us who are, or were in the military, feel a special affinity to police officers. We're cut from similar pieces of cloth.
Here are several stories gleaned from the Seattle Times or Tacoma News Tribune:
Here's a running news blog of this heinous crime:
Apparently this guy was a repeat offender:
A short bio of the 4 officers:
Friday, November 27, 2009
This time however, one hacker may have done the world a favor. On 17 November, someone hacked into the server of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK. The material was posted on the internet about 2 days later causing an under-reported firestorm. Most American news agencies haven't been running this story...
...even though it's already posted on Wikipedia:
Apparently, data was suppressed that didn't fit the "hockey stick" model. That is, the rapid increase of global temperatures due to today's industrial activity.
Most sites are giving credit to the Telegraph UK for breaking this story:
Since then, Mark Steyn has rolled-in on this with several posts:
November 26th on the Hugh Hewitt Show:
Steyn, of course, isn't the only commentator raising the hue & cry.
Michelle Malkin joins the fight:
And of course, the man President Obama doesn't want us to listen to--Rush Limbaugh:
Of course the "warmmongers," as Steyn calls them, are claiming this is a smear campaign to derail the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen.
But to most of us like-minded folks, this verifies what we've already suspected, that "global warming" is a ploy to:
a. Hamper the economies of developed nations and,
b. Regulate every aspect of a person's life.
But hopefully, the climatologists are right in one aspect. That the global temperatures ARE rising--for them.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the shooting at Ft Hood, tragically, illustrates our concern.
Mark Steyn makes several good points on how PC allowed Maj Hasan to murder his fellow soldiers, despite all the red flags he was blatantly waving:
In a previous article Mark commented that if this took place during the Cold War and Hasan expressed empathy towards the USSR or Communist China, an investigation would have opened up right away on Hasan.
My how times have changed...
Thursday, November 26, 2009
(Image by Norman Rockwell)
Mark Steyn shares his views on what we Americans have to be thankful for:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Seriously, what makes Sarah Palin so popular among conservatives is that her ideas and attitudes resonate with us commoners--unlike the bi-coastal, liberal elites, who look down their noses at the masses.
Newsweek's issue hit the stands earlier this week, and Palin, in her usual fiesty style, fired back:
Also this week, Palin kicked-off her tour for her book Going Rogue.
I don't remember any book causing such a furor, where opponents take out all the stops BEFORE the book is even published!
Apparently AP News assigned 11 fact checkers to comb through Palin's debut memoir:
Not to mention the anti-Rogue book, Going Rouge:
No matter what Sarah Palin does, "Palin Derangement Syndrome" will reach epidemic proportions among liberals.
Will, she run for president in 2012? Who knows.
But as I've told my friends, any woman who runs marathons and is a lifetime member of the NRA is my kind of gal!
Monday, November 16, 2009
After the uproar over bowing to the Saudi king, you'd think Obama and his handlers would have learned.
But no, Obama continues to use weak body language while meeting with some of the world's leaders, this time to the Japanese emperor.
The Wall Street Journal rolled-in on this foolish (and politically motivated) decision:
Former NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani also rolled in on this:
Comrade Karla had this to say:
This will go down as one of the great ill-advised moves in history. And for the record, I predicted this would happen if the Dems got in power. Fundamentally this should not be a politicized issue, but it's been clear since 9/11 that a goodly chunk of the body politic doesn't get the war thing.
And I put in my $0.02:
And "...the war thing..," is: Our enemies believe they are at war with us. So our opinions as to wether we are at war with them or not, doesn't matter. In a war, captured enemies are held prisoner until the war is over. As for war crimes, we didn't even need the '06 Military Commissions Act--the precedence was set at the Nuremburg Trials. This will be a complete and total circus.
(The Patton Speech Scene was taken down due to copyright issues)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Really? Seems pretty comprehensible to me.
1. Contacted Anwar al-Awlaki, a spiritual advisor for Al-Qaeda, MULTIPLE TIMES.
2. Made anti-American and pro-jihadi comments both in front of coworkers and on-line.
Rather than drone on, I'll let Michelle Malkin roll-in with some of the details:
David Horowitz, of Newsreal, sums it up well--that even at a memorial service for the fallen, our the President of the United States is unable to utter the words "Islamic terrorism":
Vice President Joe Biden presided over the memorial service of 7 Ft Lewis soldiers killed in Afghanistan:
Monday, November 9, 2009
The Berlin Wall, a barrier constructed, not as a bastion against foreign invasion, but to keep the citizens of East Berlin from escaping, fell 20 years ago today.
A few weeks ago Mark Steyn called this the greatest mass-liberation in mankind's history.
And yet, when it comes to discussing true freedom, like the dissidents in Iran a few months ago, our president is silent.
Steyn's homage to the one president who help bring about the collapse of the Berlin Wall:
Reagan's Berlin Wall Speech:
Apparently there IS a connection between Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, and Al-Qaeda.
“As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well,” the Army Chief of Staff also said Sunday."
Yes...nevermind 12 KIA and 30 WIA. It'd really be sad if our "diversity" got harmed. They must really brainwash these guys nowadays.
If this weren't enough Victor Davis Hanson gives us a glimpse of the next 3 years:
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The USS New York's Official Website:
Ship's motto: Never Forget.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Details are still emerging, but as of now 13 soldiers are dead, 28 wounded while Maj Hasan was wounded (initially thought to have been killed) when confronted by Officer Munley.
Some of the shooter's backstory:
As usual the mainstream media (MSM) continues to ponder the "alleged shooter's" motives.
Someone advocating that his fellow Muslims "resist aggression" + selecting a deployment outprocessing center as his target = a rather clear motive to me.
Terrorism is an act of politically motivated violence. It appears Major Hasan's views against our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were well-known. Opening fire inside a center processing soldiers for deployment would be a prime location to "make a statement."
Federal law enforcement agencies have yet to call this an act of terrorism because they view such acts with a narrow focus. That is, for them to consider an incident to be a terrorist act, the perpetrator(s) have to be members of a terrorist group. They don't consider what Mark Steyn calls "Sudden Jihad Syndrome."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
This may be a flash-in-the-pan, or a foreshadowing of the 2010 election.
Either way, unlike the Tea Parties and other grassroots protests against the Obama Administration's plans, this is a clear, politcal shot across the bow.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
One department of the Useless Nobodies (UN), is now bleating about our Predator/Hellfire missile strikes against terrorists:
Translation: The US is not allowed to defend itself by any means.
Meanwhile within the borders of the DC Beltway, our current administration is still trying to sort out what to do about Afghanistan:
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Rock stars are okay with American kids try to impersonate them and their music on games such as Guitar Hero and other games (as long as the royalty checks keep coming in).
But some of them are upset with the US Government putting their music to good use--against inmates at Gitmo.
One man's symphony is another man's interrogation session.
From Comrade Karla:
This is just amusing. I mean, some of this goes beyond civilized norms.
(Citing Associated Press)
Based on documents that already have been made public and interviews with former detainees, the archive says the playlist featured cuts from AC/DC, Britney Spears, the Bee Gees, Marilyn Manson and many other groups. The Meow mix cat food jingle, the Barney theme song and an assortment of Sesame Street tunes also were pumped into detainee cells."
I actually have to agree with this in part: Millions of American parents were tortured when their children tuned in to Barney.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
...beating ploughshares into swords is necessary.
The USS New York makes its way to the Big Apple today. Nearly 8 tons of ship's hull is from steel salvaged from the World Trade Center:
USS New York Website:
Mark Steyn's article today gives a good insight on the dangers of Obamacare:
This statement encapsulates what's at stake:
The Obama project is not difficult to understand. It’s been accomplished in many other parts of the western world: If you expand the dependent class and the government class, you can build a permanent governing coalition, and stick the beleaguered band in the middle with the tab.
Monday, October 12, 2009
An expert on Classical History (ancient Greece and Rome), VDH warns that the goddess Nemisis may end up stalking our Dear Leader because of his ever increasing hubris. (Image above is based on an actress playing Nemisis in Xena: Warrior Princess):
VDH on Obamessiah's blatant attempt at helping his cronies in Chicago win the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics:
And back to the Nobel Peace Prize and Norway's skewed sense of geo-political reality:
The friend who sent me all these VDH articles had this to say:
I'd like to believe this award is meaningless - a poke in the eye of America writ large by a bunch of self important Euro-Weenies but at the end of the day no more significant than the team that won the Super Bowl giving the President a jersey with his name on it. That said, I'm afraid this award is dangerous. My biggest concern about Barack Obama all along is not his stance on any particular issue but that he believes all of the bullshit. That he truly believes he is special in a way that none of his predecessors were and that simply through the force of his rhetoric and personality he can change the very nature of the world. I don't know if he does believe that or if he does when he really started to but this sort of undeserved and ultimately meaningless honor will reinforce that perception and that is not a good thing.
Last week, Republicans were quick to rebuke the whole Nobel Peace Prize fiasco. Here's an exerpt from RNC Chairman Michael Steele's "Nobel Peace Prize for Awesomeness" e-mail:
Even the normally fawning media have expressed shock at the clearly political and unmerited award. But the Democrats clearly see it differently, with DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse stating "the Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize."Like most Americans, the DNC can't think of one achievement that the president has accomplished, so they resort to their predictable response and standard playbook of demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
Friday, October 9, 2009
However, not everyone's happy with the award being bestowed upon our Dear Leader:
Notice the above link is not from a hatemongering site, but from Time (via Yahoo News). Last time I checked, Time wasn't considered to be in the hatemongering camp.
As mentioned at length in the above link, the legitimate question is simply: What has Obama accomplished to further the cause of peace in this troubled world?
My personal online observation was that Obama opponents listed numerous reasons why he shouldn't have received this award, while I have yet to see his supporters cite a single reason why he should. Instead they simply counter-attack us skeptics by calling us "naysayers," "mean" (Michelle Obama's favorite term), "fearmongers," "hatemongers," etc.
Maybe a little humor is needed to diffuse any confrontations between Obama supporters and detractors. Here's Saturday Night Live's impression of Obama's accomplishments during these first nine months of his presidency:
The "not ready for prime-time players" have a point.
This is more than just about liking or disliking the current US president. As with the UN ("Useless Nobodies" we often call that organization) and other corrupt international organizations, I haven't had any respect for the Nobel Committee since they awarded the Peace Prize to Yasir Arafat.
Comrade Karla posted several comments throughout the day:
Just goes to show what a joke that award has become, at least in the field of "peace," whatever that is.
Don't forget, they gave one to Le Duc Tho, Desmond Tutu, Rigoberta Menchu (who made up all that stuff about being an oppressed "other"), and Al Gore (never figured that one out).
I guess "extraordinary efforts to strengthen" count a lot more than actually accomplishing anything these days.
I think it stopped meaning much when they gave one to Arafat and then later to Jimmah in 2002 for the express purpose of poking Bush in the eye.
Given the nominations were due when Obama was only 2 weeks into the presidency, it's clear the fix was in.
Another friend had this to say:
I've said for years that the peace prize shouldn't be given out on an annual basis, because a typical year doesn't see someone like Mother Teresa or MLK Jr. It should be given out when someone comes along who actually deserves it.I could be wrong, but I think this Nobel will not help Obama, and may actually hurt him and the award itself. It's clear to everyone except his most partisan supporters that he hasn't accomplished anything yet. So he won the award for giving speeches, and for winning the election, since...the nomination deadline was in the early days of his presidency. A lot has changed since then and the shine has definitely worn off of him. This is an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes moment.
Finally, there's this point to ponder:
"...the nomination deadline was Feb 1 2009....if you believe he hasn't accomplished much after a year in office...try to remember anything he accomplished in his first 30 days in office."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
American representatives to the Dictators' Club (the UN) decided to back limits on freedom of speech.
The Weekly Standard has the full story:
My favorite quote encapsulates the problem agreeing with autocratic regimes to muzzle free speech:
"The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it."
Today's post on Bare Naked Islam is an indicator of what we may be in store for:
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The opponents of his arrest cited:
a. The victim doesn't want to revisit this incident and wants to get on with her life.
b. This will cost taxpayers money to prosecute a 31 year-old crime.
These concerns initially made me wonder if it really was worthwhile arresting the old pedophile (Roman's now in his 70s) and putting him on trial.
Last week on the O'Reilly Factor, guest contributor Dennis Miller said he changed his mind once he re-read the victim's testimony:
(Click on O'Reilly's Miller Time segment, 09/30/09. They also talk about the Olympic bid and Sarah Palin).
Then there was the outcry from all of Hollywood's "beautiful people"--against Polanski's arrest.
The denizens of Hollyweird tend to vote Democrat--you know, the "party of the people." So you'd think they'd cheer for justice prevailing in favor of "the little guy," or in this case little gal, at the time of the crime.
Not so. They're more concerned about the persecution of a "great artist."
I think the last Polanski film I saw was Pirates (1986).
So much for "great."
Mark Steyn rolls-in on "Roman's Legions":
Thursday, October 1, 2009
One commentator speculated it was done to appease our financial masters (China's been buying US debt).
I think we as a nation have better things to honor, like the 70th Anniversary of the Wizard of Oz (as pictured above in "Ruby Slipper" Red).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Obama decreed America's students are under-achievers in a world of stiff competition. To remedy this deficiency he wants to extend the school year and/or school hours.
The latest in Obama's attempt to transform our "mean nation" came out a couple of days ago:
What could be the benefit of this?
Maybe they can learn more songs of praise to the Dear Leader, like these kids did:
Michelle Malkin also dug-up further information on who sponsored this event:
FOX News, conservative websites and my like-minded friends feel this is a creepy attempt at political indoctrination.
Imagine the outcry if these kids were singing about God or Jesus in a public school.
Meanwhile, the Pledge of Allegiance--an oath of loyalty to our nation, not one man--comes under fire each school year:
I don't think the kiddies will be enthusiastically signing "Mmm--mmm-mmm" when they're couped-up in school on a hot summer day.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Meanwhile, our own Dear Leader once again played to the UN crowd with his never-ending America Has Acted Arrogant speech. Or as former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, called it: A post-American speech by our first post-American president.
It didn't take long for two of my favorite commentators to roll-in on this weeks events at the UN.
First Mark Steyn points out that there ARE differences among nations and why America taking the lead role in world affairs is a good thing:
Victor Davis Hanson, or as we call him "VDH," discusses Obama's speech template--"I'm great, Bush was bad, now I'm in charge, so all will be well." VDH points out that Obama's been using this template since he's been inaugurated:
Just prior to the UN Freak Show, VDH wrote an excellent character profile of Obama. Our current president was weened on the liberal biases at places like Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and the University of Chicago. The "academia shoe" certainly fits because it explains this administrations confusion and dismay over the growing unpopularity of their proposed policies.
Under the soft tyranny of the university campus it is easy to coerce students into the biased multi-cultural/socialist/communist/anti-Israel/anti-capitalist mindset. Threaten impressionable young minds with the charge of racism/sexism, along with failing grades, and they'll fall into line. Imagine what grade a student received in Ward Churchill's class if he wrote a paper challenging his conspiracy theories?
VDH on Dean Obama:
(Image obtain via Michelle Malkin's website. Go to: http://www.galtslist.com/classifieds/shop/ and click on the "Images for your Blog" section).
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Qaddafi was only suppose to speak fro 15 minutes, but ended up hogging the stage for 96 with a rambling diatrabe against the UN Security Council and an "oh-it-would-be-nice-if-Obama-was-president-forever" comment.
At least 11 UN delegates had the good sense to walk out on Ahmadinejad's speech:
Here's a 10-minute segment from FOX News' On the Record:
Meanwhile Obama's Apology Tour continues and as usual is laced with a heavy dose of personal pronouns (see the additional links for more commentaries):
John Bolton, former UN Ambassador rolls-in on some of the highlights of Obama's speech: