An open letter:

The president’s sophistry demonstrates a simple but profound truth: his commitment to the progressive values of tikkun olam is governed by its own “red lines,” and is entirely utilitarian. Which again raises the question: what was his purpose in stressing this shared progressive commitment in his address to you, and what was his purpose in subtly reminding you of the costs of failing to abide by its terms?

The answer, I hope, is obvious. On June 30, Obama will likely conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. This will spark a faceoff with Congress, which has already declared its opposition to the deal. Congress will inevitably pass a vote of disapproval, which Obama will inevitably veto. In order to defend that veto from a congressional override, however, he must line up 34 Senators—all Democrats. This calls in turn for a preemptive ideological campaign to foster liberal solidarity—for which your support is key. If the president can convince the liberal Jewish community, on the basis of “shared values,” to shun any suspicion of alignment with congressional Republicans or Benjamin Netanyahu, he will have an easier time batting down Congress’s opposition to the deal with Iran.

Progressive values have nothing to do with what is truly at stake in this moment of decision. Only one final question really matters: in your considered view, should the Islamic Republic of Iran be the dominant power in the Middle East, and should we be helping it to become that power? If your answer is yes, then, by all means, continue to applaud the president—loudly and enthusiastically—as he purports to repair the world.

He was really speaking for President Jarrett, I think.

No, Bush didn’t lie about WMD:

Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.

Yup.

What a shock that the State Department decided to do a dump on a Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend. Nonetheless, there were some interesting revelations there about Sid “Vicious” Blumenthal, who Hillary employed (one way or another) despite a request (demand?) from the White House that she not so do. But, as always with the Clinton’s what’s more interesting about what is released is what is not there:

“You were aware that Ambassador Stevens — of his cable that said that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, is that right?” Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, N.H., asked Panetta.

“Correct,” said Panetta.

“General, you had said that you previously were aware of that?” Ayotte said to Dempsey.

“Yes, I was aware of the communication back to the State Department,” Dempsey answered.

Clinton, on the other hand, insists to this day that she knew nothing. And there is nothing in the newly-released emails to contradict her sworn testimony on the matter. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, because Clinton kept her communications on a separate, secret system, the only emails that State Department officials possess are the ones Clinton has given them. Clinton and her lawyers, of course, chose the emails that she gave to the State Department and then destroyed all of her email communications, including backups. Could anyone possibly be surprised that nothing Clinton turned over to the State Department — and ultimately to the public — contradicted her testimony under oath?

It is shocking. On the other hand, since the server was hacked by foreign powers, they may just be waiting for an opportune time to blackmail her.

And as he notes, in this case, while the cover up is very bad, probably felonious, the crime is even worse.

[Update a few minutes later]

Sort of related: The Pentagon saw ISIS as a strategic asset:

The revelations contradict the official line of Western governments on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

And poor Obama, why do bad things always happen to good people like him? The “JV team” is on the verge of creating a terrorist state in the Middle East.

I would say that, given that they’re orchestrating attacks on us at home, ISIS (ISIL, whatev) is functionally waging war on us. Under traditional Westphalian rules, we would respond with our own declaration of war, and destroy their state. But it’s hard to do that with “no boots on the ground.” Apparently, Westphalia is over. It had a good run.

[Update a while later]

Hillary’s real Libya problem isn’t Benghazi, as criminally negligent as it was, it’s the total failure of Libya itself. Which, of course, is the result of a Libya policy she used to want to take credit for.