NATO Attack Kills 20 Pakistani Soldiers

Islamabad (CNN) -- NATO helicopters opened fire on a Pakistani checkpoint, killing 20 soldiers, two senior Pakistani military officials said Saturday.
The officials said 12 soldiers were wounded in the attack late Friday in the Mohmand Agency area, one of seven districts of the volatile region bordering Afghanistan. The death toll could rise as many of the injuries are critical, they said.
The officials did not want to be named because they are not allowed to talk to the media.
In a statement, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said he "strongly condemned the NATO/ISAF attack on the Pakistani post."
The matter is being taken up by the Foreign Ministry "in the strongest possible terms" with NATO and the United States, he said.
NATO has said it is aware of "an incident," but has not released any details.
"We are still gathering information," said Jason Wagner, a spokesman for the NATO-led military mission.
Gen. Aminullah Amarkhil, commander of Afghanistan's eastern border police, said an operation was going on in the area bordering Mohmand Agency on Friday night.
"Last night, there was an operation there inside Afghanistan," he said. "Pakistani and Afghan Taliban have got a broad presence there as there are forests and difficult terrain. That's why there was an operation."
He said the military activity was in Afghanistan's Kunar province, but added he was unaware of NATO firing on Pakistani forces on the other side of the border. His latest information suggested 10 insurgents had been killed in the Afghanistan operation, he said.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has halted the flow of NATO supplies in Khyber Agency bordering Afghanistan in response to the attack, said Jamil Khan, a senior government official in the area.
About 50 containers and trucks carrying supplies for NATO were stopped at the town of Jamrud in Khyber Agency on Saturday morning, Khan said.
They were ordered to turn back toward Peshawar, the provincial capital of northwestern province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, he said.
A second route from Pakistan into Afghanistan, the Chaman border crossing in Balochistan province, is still open to NATO supply trucks.
Roughly 40% of nonlethal NATO supplies and fuel go through Pakistan, with hundreds of supply trucks using the two routes into Afghanistan.
About 130,000 troops are deployed in Afghanistan with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, 90,000 of them American, according to NATO figures.
If confirmed as a NATO attack, Friday's incident could be the deadliest for Pakistani soldiers involving NATO since a U.S. airstrike in June 2008, which Pakistan said killed 11 of its forces who were cooperating with the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
That airstrike, also in Mohmand Agency, prompted the government in Islamabad to summon the U.S. ambassador and lodge an official protest.
NATO commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John R. Allen, met with the Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Thursday, the Pakistani military said.
"The visiting dignitary remained with him for some time and discussed measures concerning coordination, communication and procedures between Pakistan army, ISAF and Afghan army, aimed at enhancing border control on both sides," a Pakistani military statement said.
Pakistani officials who spoke with CNN expressed anger about Friday's attack.

Gingrich-Romney "Fight For The Nomination"

Jonah Golberg - Whether the matchup between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is the final bout on the GOP primary card is impossible to know. The whole season has been more like professional wrestling than boxing, with weird characters sporting implausible hair appearing out of nowhere to talk smack and explain why they are the greatest in the world. (I'm looking at you in particular, Mr. Trump.)
Still, let's assume for the moment that it's a Gingrich-Romney contest.
It's quite a matchup. Romney has been brutalized for having too little personality, Gingrich for having way, way too much. Romney looks like the picture that comes with the frame. Gingrich looks like he should be ensconced in royal velvet as he gestures at you with a half-eaten turkey leg in one hand and a sloshing goblet of wine in the other. Romney seems terrified of fully committing to any idea. Gingrich speaks as if he just text-messaged with God.
Gingrich would have everyone believe he is the winner of the anti-Romney mantle not merely by default but by hard-won effort and a well-deserved reputation for conservative steadfastness. Many in the media, meanwhile, think that since Gingrich is taking the slot once held by Palin, Bachmann, Cain and Perry, he is a conservative of similar stripe. And many liberals think that since they hate him so much, he must be really right-wing. (They made the same mistake with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, both of whom were far less ideologically conservative than their press clippings indicated.)
The reality is more complicated. For starters, it's not altogether clear that Gingrich is that far to the right of Romney.
Gingrich's record -- political and rhetorical -- is so vast and diverse, there's plenty of evidence to build almost any narrative you want. He's said some of the most bombastic right-wing things of any mainstream Republican in our lifetimes, but he's also reached across the aisle more frequently than far-more-liberal Republicans would ever dare.
As House speaker, he cut a deal with President Clinton on the budget. He infamously joined forces with Nancy Pelosi on climate change, with the NAACP on prison reform and with Al Sharpton on education. He was one of the few movement conservatives to vocally back George W. Bush's expansion of Medicare, and he continues to support ethanol subsidies with a straight face. And, of course, last April he tore into Paul Ryan's budget proposal as "right-wing social engineering," immolating himself in the process.
Gingrich has since retracted and modified his stance on the Ryan plan. And he's called his pairing with Pelosi one of the stupidest things he's ever done.
Still, those who dismiss Gingrich as hopelessly unelectable in the general election should at least keep in mind that Gingrich's apostasies will make it harder to tar him as a cookie-cutter "right-wing extremist."
The crucial question for most Republicans will be: Who would govern more conservatively? The candidate who answers that question to the satisfaction of the GOP base will likely be the nominee. But that question begs another: What will Congress look like?
If the Republicans take back the Senate and hold the House, you could make the case that Romney is the better man for the job. Given his unpopularity with the base of his own party, he would be on a much shorter leash and be expected to fly Ryan's flag over the West Wing while making Republican proposals seem more reasonable to the public. He very well might be the technocrat in chief, implementing reforms not necessarily of his own choosing.
Gingrich, meanwhile, is much more of a wild card. It's no secret he sees himself as a world historical figure, the last of the great statesmen. And part of that self-conception is his idea that statesmen cut grand bargains with the opposition when history calls for it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you know for sure when history calls for it. If the GOP controlled Congress, conservatives would be on constant "Nixon to China" watch with a President Gingrich.
Given the craziness of the season, I've been humbled enough to say I have no idea how this will play out. But I will admit, I'm looking forward to the next steel cage match.

Democractic Pollsters: Obama Should Not Run For A Second Term

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy - Now THERE is a headline I can get behind, from the National Journal. Yes, a variety of sources are reporting today that Democratic pollsters are a bit concerned about Obama’s re-election campaign, and what would happen should he get (NOOOO!) a second term. I gotta tell you, this is a welcome headline indeed.
And just who are these Democratic pollsters, one might ask? Well, Patrick Caddell, for one, and Douglas Schoen for another. Now, I admit right up front that I am a bit partial to Patrick Caddell. Not only is he from a city in SC, close to the NC border, but he tells it like it is whether it is beneficial to his party or not, a rare find in today’s political exceedingly partisan world. Schoen is no slouch in that department, either, and I respect him as well.
And now to their headline-grabbing claim:

[snip] “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.
[...]
“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.
Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign. (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley – see what I mean? Telling it like it is. I happen to think they are 100% correct in their conclusion. Obama is the most partisan president I have ever seen, and his use of the Super Committee as a campaign talking point makes the case. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the time to play party politics. This is the time to work to save the nation, and we all have to work together toward that end. Yet, Obama refuses to accept any recommendations of the very committee he put together (Simpson Bowles), and the Democrats refuse to hear plans based on those recommendations because they come from – the horror – a Republican (Toomey). Sheer insanity.
One interesting twist to this drumbeat for Obama to step down from a re-election campaign is who the pollsters mentioned above think should take his place: Hillary Rodham Clinton. From their piece in the Wall Street Journal:

[snip] He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Interesting, no? But in the same breath as why she should be the nominee, is why many of us would have problems with this successor: Clinton is a loyal member of the Obama Administration. Uh, yeah…
Now, most of us also know that Clinton should have been, and would have been, the 2008 Nominee had the DNC and Obama Campaign not engaged in a tremendous amount of well-documented shenanigans, some illegal, and others unethical and immoral. Not only did the DNC violate the law in 13 states (see jbjd’s excellent report on this), but their machinations 5/31/08 to steal lawfully cast votes from Clinton to give to Obama was the last straw for many dyed in the wool, yellow dog Democrats, like myself.
But that was then, and this is now. Though I have to say, I do like the idea of not having to hear Obama continue his Us/Them attacks for another freakin’ year. I would be MORE than happy for him to just throw in the towel now. And he can take Michelle “I Pay $15,000 A Day For Makeup” Obama with him. Oh, wait – SHE doesn’t pay it. WE pay it. And that is a helluva lotta coin for MAKEUP. IMHO, that is.
So, yeah – I agree with Caddell and Schoen that it’s time for them to take their leave from DC. How about you?

Even Obama's Followers Are Following Away

David Limbaugh - President Obama's cheerleaders are starting to peel away along with his approval ratings, and it's a fascinating sight to behold. They offer different reasons, but they all boil down to one obvious thing -- Obama is first and foremost about Obama -- and one less obvious: He has been a failed president.
Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, admittedly more centrist than most of their Democratic counterparts, penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal urging Obama "to abandon his candidacy for re-election." The authors conclude that the only way Obama could possibly win in 2012 would be "to wage the most negative campaign in history," because he has no successful record to run on. If he would happen to win in that way, he wouldn't be able to govern, they say, so he should step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to run.
Their main beef with Obama seems to be his extreme partisanship, which is a particularly damning indictment coming from fellow Democrats. Should he resign, they argue, he would be in a better position to work with Republicans toward "a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future" instead of obsessing over whether he or George W. Bush is more to blame for our problems.
I don't agree that Obama would be any easier to work with if he were to withdraw from the race, but it is significant that two credible Democrats, both still loyal to their party, concede that Obama is hyper-partisan and hopelessly mired in the quicksand of scapegoating his predecessor.
Even more interesting was the viral video of Chris Matthews explaining to fellow MSNBC host Alex Witt why his Obama-thrill is gone. This represents quite a fall from Matthews' previous perch of Obama hero worship.
Matthews clearly believes that Obama peaked about the time his campaign ended and his term in office began, because "the day he was inaugurated, with the Mall filled with people, African-Americans and everyone else, he sent us all home and said, 'Thank you. Now watch how smart I am.' That's the worst kind of a notion of the presidency."
Matthews is also upset that Obama is running a "virtual presidency," through endless impersonal emails, rather than building and exploiting the interpersonal relationships that are vital for effective governance. On that score, he laments: "I hear stories (from members of Congress) that you will not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election."

The "Palinization" Of Newt Gingrich Is Next On The Calendar

Allahpundit - With Newt Gingrich continuing to surge in the polls, plenty of stories are bubbling to the surface, including things from the distant past. And let’s face it… Newt has been knocking around US politics for an awfully long time, with tales of many of his exploits being told and retold until they pass into legend. Of course, you know what they say about legends.

[countable] an old story about famous people and events in the past. Legends are not usually true

One of the more nasty ones is the persistent tale of how Newt went to see his wife as she lay dying of cancer in her hospital bed and presented her with divorce papers. Ouch. That’s a pretty unpleasant story to float about anyone, and apparently it’s so temptingly salacious that it keeps getting hinted at in the media and I’ve seen it cropping up again on Twitter as recently as last night. Unfortunately for the gossip minded, nearly every aspect of the story is false and has been roundly debunked by what should be considered a pretty reliable source – his own daughter who was in the hospital room at the time. (Hat tip to OTB.)

So, to correct the record, here is what happened: My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family. I am lucky to have such a “Miracle Mom,” as I titled her in a column this week.
As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me.
It was the spring of 1980.
I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home.
Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.
Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her.
It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:
My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested.
Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother.
She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor.
The tumor was benign.
As with many divorces, it was hard and painful for all involved, but life continued.

Yes, Newt is on his third marriage and some conservatives will raise questions about his marital track record, as they are entitled to do. But repeating this old chestnut is hurtful and slanderous. (For the record, I actually believed this story myself for quite a while and I know I made reference to it, so I’d like to apologize once again as well.)
There will be more than enough real material for critics to debate coming from Gingrich’s decades of public (and private) life, but we should focus on what is accurate and verifiable. So if you see anyone repeating this myth, do everyone a favor and point them to his daughter’s account of the story.