President Obama deserves credit for authorizing the execution of Osama bin Laden and for significantly intensifying the drone campaign against terrorists. He's largely stopped romanticizing the Palestinians; has recognized that Putin made an ass of him; and has even hinted that he might stand up to China on some issues. 

But even if he turns into a combination of Ike, Reagan and Carl von Clausewitz in the coming months, his administration's foreign-policy record will forever be defined by his disastrous rush to leave Iraq - then brag about it.

Does anybody at the White House look at a map? I realize that, thanks to the left's death-grip on our education system, we've stopped teaching trivial subjects like geography in favor of gender studies, but you don't have to be able to name all 17,000 islands belonging to Indonesia to recognize that simply quitting Iraq opens a terrorist superhighway straight from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to Lebanon, Hezbollah, northern Israel and the eastern Mediterranean.

After days of vehement denials and indignant claims that NATO's recent attack on Pakistani outposts was unprovoked and deliberate, a "senior Pakistani defense official" has admitted that it was the Pakistanis who started the firefight with "mortar and machine gun fire."

His words come a bit too late to stop the firestorm of anti-Americanism and the damage to the Afghan war effort, but may prove useful if they prompt Washington to take a sober look at our "alliance" with Pakistan.

The stark reality is that ten years after we forced Islamabad into a shotgun wedding in the aftermath of 9/11, Pakistan is no more of an ally (let alone a "strategic" ally) than before, but an adversary with interests often diametrically opposed to our own.

A survey of the Pakistani press in the days since the border incident reveals a society that is in serious trouble. Hysterical anti-Americanism aside, stories included:

The U.S. Department of Education was created with the primary stated goal of increasing students' test scores, but test scores for 17-year-old American students have remained essentially flat since 1970. The department's budget has grown to a whopping $107 billion this year. Per pupil, taxpayer-financed education spending (adjusted for inflation) has risen by more than 200 percent since 1970 (and 150-plus percent since 1980). Clearly and unambiguously, the department deserves a grade of F.

The employees and bureaucrats at Education have been rewarded for failure each year by ever-increasing budgets, which give them more control of state education departments and local school boards. If you reward failure, you tend to get more of it, and if you reward success, you tend to get more successes. Thus, it is no surprise that test scores have not improved.

Suppose Congress said to the department, "We are going to cut your budget and payroll by 20 percent per year until test scores start improving, and if they have not substantially improved within five years, the department will be dust." What do you think would happen to test scores?

"We should do what we can to wake people up, but reality is far more eloquent than we can ever be."
-- Dagny on the TTP Forum

I'm afraid Dagny is right. America probably won't wake up until the OPM (Other Peoples' Money) suddenly runs out, quite possibly with the dollar blowing up and all the drastic consequences (how do we then import oil?) thereof.

Although we don't know yet which candidate will win the Republican nomination or whether that candidate will replace BO, we already know enough to foresee some near future consequences that will occur whoever wins.

Whether BO wins another term or one of the plausible Republicans wins, the five most important existentially threatening problems and their outcomes will be the same.  These are the shapes of things to come.

Well, he had to crack under the pressure sooner or later, and thank heavens it's sooner.  Everyone on Capitol Hill this morning can't stop talking about it.  Boehner and Reid have just been told to expect a momentous announcement from the White House. 

At 9pm EDT this evening, the President will announce on national television that, due to the overwhelming difficulties the nation faces which have proven impossible for him to solve because Republicans refuse to cooperate, he is resigning the presidency effective immediately.  Good luck, America, he will say, you'll have to solve your problems without me.

And yes, today is April Fool's Day.

*  *  *  *  *  * 
So let's talk about fools - and their luck.  Zero just might pull Libya off.  He'll have David Cameron to thank for it, and MI6, which is disintegrating Gaddafi's regime via defections.

Conservative contempt for Zero is so bottomless that many don't want him to succeed even when it's in our clear interests that he do so.  He was right in saying the US could not stand by while Gaddafi perpetrated genocidal slaughter upon his own people, and wrong in not solving the problem immediately by an assassination strike on Gaddafi.

So now he owns this war which has to be won - for if Gaddafi stays in power he will "return to international terrorism and resume his nuclear weapons program," warns John Bolton who is nobody's fool.  When asked about the rebels fighting Gaddafi and if they might be radical Islamists, John responded,

"Yes, there is uncertainty about them - but when there is Muammar Gaddafi on one side and uncertainty on the other, you pick uncertainty."

How many times have you heard the president and the congressional Democrats say Americans who make less than $200,000 a year have not had, and will not have, any of their taxes increased? Unfortunately, it is not true, and it is likely to become a whole lot worse.

The 111th Congress has already enacted $352 billion in net tax increases and may, in the upcoming lame-duck session, enact the largest tax increases in history, which will hit every man, woman and child - as well as every business in America.

The president and most congressional Democrats have been claiming they will make sure no one making less than $200,000 per year will face a tax increase when all of the "Bush tax cuts" expire on midnight Dec. 31. Given they have not been truthful about the tax increases they already have enacted, why should anyone believe these new claims?