Friday, October 28, 2016

Email Leaks

U.S. intelligence sources claim they “believes” the Russians are the source of the email leaks.  They know who the source is but want to blame the Russians.  This claim has been put out by the Democrats and their media.  Over 90% of the U.S. public has bought this.  There is no proof and if there was these agencies would have released it.  The Russians deny being the source.  Yet Vice President Biden has announced that we will initiate a covert cyber attack on the Russians in retaliation.  (Please keep this info under your hat, it’s covert.)  The Democrats and the media have made a big deal of Trump’s statement that he might not accept the results of the election.  They are projecting.  If Trump wins the election it can be invalidated because the Russians interfered.

“Everyone has the emails, except the FBI.”  If some Romanian has access to these emails is it possible that half a dozen multimillion dollar intelligence agencies don’t?  Foreign governments have an interest in not releasing these emails.  If Hillary is “elected” there is information in them that could come in handy.  She might be more willing to do certain things in order to keep this information secret.  However, the Israelis have a special interest in them after the Obama Administration interfered in their election.

Much of the U.S. conflict with Russia originates in the Middle East.  Obama created ISIS and other radical groups in order to transform the Middle East.  Hillary took great joy in overthrowing Qaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died. Ha Ha Ha.”)  The only reason that the conflict in Syria continues is because of U.S. support for the rebels.  Even this support is plagued with corruption and incompetence ($500 million to train 4 rebels).  Hillary wants a no-fly zone in Syria.  That means WW III.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Japanese Responsibility for World War II

Akiko Takenaka has written an article entitled, “Japanese Memories of the Asia-Pacific War: Analyzing the Revisionist Turn Post-1995,” for The Asia-Pacific Journal.  In it she examines the different interpretations of the responsibility for the Second World War.  The Japanese people have been criticized because they have not been sufficiently contrite about their role in the war.  The article attempts to explain their various positions.

The conflict between those wanting to emphasize Japan’s guilt and those who want to minimize it reflects the almost universal breakdown on the matter of collective guilt.  As Takenaka says “war memory has become a political position.”  An accurate account of what actually took place has fallen victim to political agendas. 

Crimes were committed.  Japanese historians should record those crimes.  They are part of Japan’s history.  Revisionist historians argue that history books must present a picture that Japanese youths can be proud of.  It should not be necessary to “whitewash” the history books.  Even youths realize that crimes have been committed by all nations.  However, a balanced account of what transpired does not fit with the progressive agenda.  Crimes must be highlighted.  The people of each nation must be made to feel guilty for events in their history.  An incredibly thorough job has been done in Germany using the world wars and the holocaust.  The people of the United States must bear the burden of slavery and the murder of the indigenous people.  Guilt is an incredibly lucrative industry.  Should Caucasian American be held responsible for slavery if the parents or grandparents migrated to the United States after the Emancipation Proclamation.  Should they feel guilty for the plight of a Nigerian who just migrated to the U.S. simply because of his race?

Takenaka points out that the ways the Asia-Pacific War was depicted in Japanese textbooks caused tensions between Japan and its East Asian neighbors.  The level of hostility is remarkably high considering the length of time involved.  A member of the Japanese Lower House, Takaichi Sanae, born in 1961, has been in the forefront of efforts to deny responsibility for the war by people born after 1945.  This is the position of individuals who believe in individual responsibility as opposed to collective responsibility.  Sanae’s position is opposed by Carol Gluck, a holocaust researcher.  Gluck argues it takes more than the top political and military leaders, therefore all Japanese bear some responsibility.  It is easy to condemn people from the comfort of our living room.  There were people who stood up and protested the actions of their despotic governments.  In the case of Nazi Germany, the name of 22 year old Sophie Scholl comes to mind.  She was executed in 1943. 

Controversy has arisen by people paying official tribute at Yasukuni Shrine.  This is where the spirits of all military dead from modern Japan including fourteen war criminals are memorialized.  In the majority of towns and cities of the American South there are monuments to the fallen from the Civil War.  There is a movement to remove these monuments.  Defenders of their Confederate heritage are condemned as racist for opposing this.

Do the traditionalist have a point.  They would like to portray Japan a victim and as the liberator of Asia from Western imperialism.  In some respects this is true.  Japanese occupation was not always as barbaric as it is portrayed.  Chinese actually migrated to Manchukuo during the Japanese occupation.  However, trying to make it appear as a benevolent policy is stretching it. The argument that Japan fought the war of self-defense might have some validity in the case of its relations with the U.S.  The Roosevelt administration was well aware that cutting off Japan’s oil supply would lead to war.  Their crime in China pale in comparison to the murderous policies of the Mao regime.  The Japanese are condemned for their practice of providing “comfort women” for their troops. 

It is a natural human trait to minimize the significance of crimes one is responsible for.  Progressives are more than willing to condemn the crimes of the U.S. and Japan when they were under less progressive rule.  Are they willing to condemn progressive regimes?  Apparently not.  They have successfully deleted numerous crimes from the history books. 

Progressives have consistently underestimated the number of fatalities in the air war and the fact that this war was directed at the civilian population.  In Europe is was known as the Lindemann Plan.  Takenaka gives a figure of approximately 330,000 people killed in the air war over Japan.  This is a bogus figure.  The casualty figures for Hiroshima range from 90,000 to 146,000.  The figures for Nagasaki are 39,000 to 80,000.  The fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in 100,000 deaths according to American and Japanese authorities.  Wikipedia claims, “both may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll.”  That would mean a total of 326,000 fatalities for three cities leaving the fatalities from nearly 197 cities uncounted.  There is no mention in Western history book on the slave labor provision in the Morgenthau Plan and the Yalta Agreement.  There is no mention of the engineered famine in Europe after the war.  The Western allies did not establish barbaric comfort stations, instead through their economic policies they converted all Axis women into prostitutes.  The Roosevelt administration was complicit in the Katyn Forest Massacre coverup.  The list of embarrassing acts is as long the Japanese.

Finally, Takenaka mentions Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which prohibits the Japanese military from going to war.  It is a product of the postwar belief that Germany and Japan were uniquely aggressive and should be disarmed.  This delusional view only lasted a short time before the West was begging the Germans to rearm. Article 9 has been very successful for Japan only because the United States ensures it safety.  As the U.S. withdraws from Asia Japan had better make efforts to defend itself.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Coming War With Russia

Originally published in American Thinker on 21 October 2016
Republished by Foxnews: http:nation.foxnews.com2016/10/21/coming-war-russia
Translated and published in Russian: and

It certainly sounds alarmist to predict a war with Russia.  However, members of this administration are following policies that can lead to only that result.  They are following belligerent policies on two fronts: cyberspace and Syria.  These policies are based on a farrago of mendacity and incompetence.  
The cyberspace conflict arose as a result of suspicion that the Russians are interfering in the U.S. election through WikiLeaks.  The Russians firmly deny that they have any involvement in the hacking.  The Office of Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement: "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.  We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." 
It should be noted that this assertion is based upon a "belief."  The administration has provided no proof.  Any foreign intelligence service with a budget over $129 could have access to the secretary of state's email.  In the face of this grave threat, the administration has enlisted the awe-inspiring intellect of Vice President Joe Biden.  In an interview with Chuck Todd on 13 October, Biden asserted, "We're sending a message.  We have the capacity to do it, and it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact."  After publicly announcing the proposed covert cyber-attack, Todd asked Biden if the public would know about it.  Biden responded, "Hope not."
Biden's remarks were immediately denounced by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said, "The threats directed against Moscow and our state's leadership are unprecedented because they are voiced at the level of the U.S. vice president."  Vladimir Putin responded, "The only novelty is that for the first time, on the highest level, the United States has admitted involvement in these activities, and to some extent threatened [us] – which of course does not meet the standards of international communication."
There are many reasons for objecting to cyber-attacks.  Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell pointed out, "Physical attacks on networks is not something the US wants to do because we don't want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us."  Should the Russians be subjected to a cyber-attack, the U.S. will be the first suspect.  This is a perfect opportunity for a party interested in fomenting conflict between the U.S. and Russia.  Most importantly, an attack of this nature would increase tensions in an already tense relationship.
The other area of conflict involves U.S. policy in Syria.  Reuters reported on a 14 October meeting of President Obama's foreign policy team.  Reuters reports that some advisers are advocating "direct U.S. military action such as air strikes on Syrian military bases, munitions depots or radar and anti-aircraft bases."  This includes over 50 State Department diplomats.  What these officials are advocating is an act of war.  The Russians have deployed S-300 and S-400 air defense systems to Syria, and they have warned that any strike against Syrian forces "would put Russian personnel in danger."
Hillary Clinton has advocated the creation of a no-fly zone.  The problem with this policy was pointed out by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Gen. Joseph Dunford testified before Congress: "right now, Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war, against Syria and Russia."  The need for more forceful action arose with the impending fall of Aleppo.  Reuters claims that the rebels feel betrayed because "Obama encouraged their uprising by calling for Assad to go but then abandoned them."  Hillary Clinton also "played a key role in starting the civil war in Syria when she was Secretary of State in 2011."

Tension between the U.S. and Russia is at the highest point since the end of the Cold War.  It might be time to step back and reassess our situation.  Instead, we have the chief of staff, General Mark Milley, declaring, "I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before.  Make no mistake about that."  Milley certainly would not have made these remarks without administration approval.  His confidence in the military's ability to "beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before" seems overly optimistic, considering the difficulties we are having in defeating ISIS.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Our Caring Elite

There is a modern religion that has replaced Christianity.  In some respects it is based on Christianity with it concern with the poor.  It has hundreds of millions of followers.  It controls perhaps the majority of nations and in its purer forms has brought much misery.  This religion of course is socialism.  It is interesting to read what progressive journalist write about socialist regimes in their early stages.  A May 2012 article in The Guardian by Richard Gott extols the virtues of the Chavez regime in Venezuela.  Gott writes Chavez, “has shown the countries of Latin America that there is an alternative to the single neoliberal message that has been endlessly broadcast for decades, by governments and the media in hock to an outdated ideology.”  Of course Gott wrote this prior to the toilet paper shortage.  Venezuela might be short of necessities but it appears to have an abundance of Rolex watches some costing as much as $15,000.  The Youtube video entitled “Los Relojes del Chavismo ¿Ser rico es malo?” documents the various Rolex watches and their prices worn by the Venezuelan elite.  Socialism prides itself on the redistribution of wealth.  They have done an exceedingly good job in Venezuela.  Hugo Chavez’s daughter Maria reportedly has $4.2 billion stashed away according to Diario las Americas.

I along with C. S. Lewis would prefer the rule of robber barons: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” 

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Biden Joins Chorus Condemning Trump

In an interview recorded Thursday, but broadcast on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden shared his disgust with NBC host Chuck Todd over GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump boasting that he sexually assaults women.

"Trump is so stupid that he doesn’t understand — no, no it’s possible,” Biden said over laughs from the pro-Hillary crowd.

"He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about [Biden said of Trump], and guess what?  That's OK sometimes … But I've got a military aide with me carrying a briefcase.  No, I mean this sincerely.  That briefcase has the nuclear codes in it and, God forbid, if something happened to the president and a decision had to be made, I open it up and the nuclear codes are there. Just imagine giving this guy access."

The vice president recently revealed to dinner companions the location of the “secret” secure hideout where he would go in the event of a terrorist attack or other national security threat.

Joe might have his faults, but nobody, nobody can sing "The Villages" like Joe

Friday, October 14, 2016

The "Great" Debates

On 19 October Donald Trump will be debating Hillary Clinton and Chris Wallace.  The results of this debate should not be that much different from the second debate against Hillary Clinton, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz or the first debate against Clinton and Lester Holt.  Donald Trump improves with experience.  His opponents do not.  You would think that they would realize that by taking an obviously biased position they actually harm their cause.  They are so conditioned to people being submissive in the face of elite media criticism that they do not know how to deal with Trump.  He goes on the offensive to the cheers of his audience. 

In his confrontation with Lester Holt, Trump gave his opposition ammunition.  Holt said, “You supported the war in Iraq.”  Trump responded, “That is mainstream media nonsense.  I was against the war in Iraq.”  To this Holt replied “The record shows otherwise.”  “The record” does indeed show that Trump tentatively supported the invasion.  However, it is an extremely flimsy record.  On a talk show in 2012 prior to the invasion Trump was asked if he favored invasion.  He responded tepidly, "Yeah, I guess so.”  This was hardly a strong endorsement of invasion and obviously subject to change.

The significant point here is that the moderators were not as zealous when Hillary Clinton distorted the truth.  When Trump pointed out that Clinton was Secretary of State when Obama made his famous “line in the sand” comment, Clinton claimed that she was not Secretary of State at that time.  Obama made his threat in August 2012.  Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013.  

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Concern About Decency

The First Lady is concerned about our nation's leaders meeting basic standards of human decency:
Add caption
"The fact is in this election we have a candidate for president of the United States who over the course of his lifetime and the course of this campaign has said things about women that are so shocking, so demeaning, I simply will not repeat anything here today.  And last week we saw this candidate actually bragging about sexual assaulting women. I can't believe I'm saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.  Language that has been painful for so many of us, not just as women, but as parents trying to protect our children and raise them to be caring, respectful adults. And as citizens who think our nation's leaders should meet basic standards of human decency."

New Year's Eve Gets Wilder - Kathy Griffin one year dropped an f-bomb during CNN's  New Year's Eve broakcast.  The year before that she shouted down a heckler with a blowjob joke.
The Obamas are big 'fans of rap music.  The President claims, “In my first term, I sang Al Green; in my second term, I’m going with Young Jeezy.” These are probably those poplar ditties from Young Jeezy’s album Thug Motivation 101.  They frequently have Jay-Z and Beyonce over to entertain.  They probably performed their tune I Just Wanna Love U containing those classy lyrics “Gimme that funk, that sweet, that nasty, that gushi stuff But don't bullshit me.”

Photographic Proof of Clinton Aid to Haiti

There have been many complaints about Clinton Foundation aid for Haiti following the 2010 earthquake.  A Google search on the foundation contains many articles about corruption.  However, there is photographic evidence that the Clintons did provide funds for Haitian relief.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Possible War With Russia

Mark Alexander Milley is a United States Army officer, a four-star general, he is the 39th Chief of Staff of the Army and a sock puppet.  According to an article in the UK Sun Milly, “fired a thinly-veiled threat at Russia and warned: ‘We will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before.’”  This threat was entirely unnecessary.  Miller would not have made such a statement without Obama Administration.  In fact they likely directed him to make the statement.

Milly claimed, “We will destroy any enemy, anywhere, any time.”  However, this does not appear to be the case with the Junior Varsity team in the Middle East.  The U.S. is now shipping a high-tech anti-missile system into the Middle East.  Considering the fact that much of the ISIS’s military equipment is manufactured in the U.S., this may not be such a good idea. 

Comparing the U.S. diplomatics (Samantha Power, John Kerry), to their Russian counterparts, we should feel embarrassed. These clowns are intentionally provoking the Russians.

Monday, October 10, 2016

The Never Clintons and The 30 former GOP lawmakers who signed anti-Trump letter

 “30 former GOP lawmakers sign anti-Trump letter” is the title of an article on CNN.  The letter states, "Given the enormous power of the office, every candidate for president must be judged rigorously in assessing whether he or she has the competence, intelligence, knowledge, understanding, empathy, judgment, and temperament necessary to keep America on a safe and steady course.  Donald Trump fails on each of those measures, and he has proven himself manifestly unqualified to be president."  Can Donald Trump pass this rigorous judgment?  Can any candidate?  Can Hillary Clinton?

The media has been very conscientious in pursuing Trump’s failings and supposed failings.  Much is made of the fact that he has declared bankruptcy.   It is not uncommon for a successful entrepreneur to have declared bankruptcy.  He is criticized for not paying income tax.  Who does not pay the least amount of taxes the law allows?  The wealthy can afford accountants who can comb the tax loopholes intentional written in the statutes for their benefit.  The Clintons, while not bankrupt, claimed to be living in poverty immediately after leaving the White House.  Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton earned a combined $109 million between 2000 and 2007 and paid $33.8 million in federal taxes, according to tax information released Friday by Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.  They are now multimillionaires.  What kinds of businesses have they created to produce such wealth?  Was this money acquired exclusively from speaking fees?  Hillary Clinton must be a spellbinding speaker to draw hundreds of thousands of dollar for a speaking engagement.  There are many questions about these speaking engagements and about the Clinton Foundation.

Trump has said some unflattering things about women.  Are his comments about Rosie O’Donnell inaccurate?   Hillary has said some unflattering things about half of Trump’s supporters which she called a “basket of deplorables.”  Robert De Niro has called Donald Trump a “pig.”  I am certain that Robert De Niro has never said anything in regards to women that he would find embarrassing.  The media is trying to portray the results of this latest controversy as a “stampede.”  Trump has been criticized for not disowning his more extreme supporters.  Both campaigns have supporters that can only be described as an embarrassment.  For every “Pepe” the frog there is someone defecating on a U.S. flag. 

During Trump’s debate against Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt, Holt, in effect, called Trump a liar.  Holt asserted, “You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your…”  Trump interrupted at this point stating that he did not support the war.  Holt persisted saying, “My question is, since you supported it…”  Again Trump interrupted saying he did not support the war.  Holt continued, “The record shows otherwise, but why -- why was…”  Trump interrupted Holt for the third time saying, “When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don't know, maybe, who knows?”  During this September 11, 2002 interview he was asked by Stern, “Are you for invading Iraq?”  Trump responded, “Yeah I guess so.”  The is hardly a firm endorsement for invasion.  His voice displays a sense of reluctance.  In a January 28, 2003 interview with Neil Cavuto, Trump stated, “Perhaps he (Bush) shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”  Clearly, Trump was not an enthusiastic advocate for war with Iraq.  However, this is an accusation the Left cannot abandon.

Much of the outrage about Trump’s behavior is obviously manufactured.  He has repeatedly stepped over the line that would lead to his doom.  He has not only survived, but flourished.  His remarks about women are inexcusable.  However, they are remarks.  Juanita Broaddrick and a host of other women can testify that Bill Clinton did much more than make disparaging remarks.  Clinton Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent, and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her.  Apparently he has been a frequent visitor to “Pedophile Island,” owned by his good friend Jeffrey Epstein.  Bill Clinton has committed perjury in order to conceal his sexual indiscretions.  Has he been called a pig by the likes of Robert De Niro?

Robert De Niro complained, ““It makes me so angry that this country has gotten to this point that this fool, this bozo, has wound up where he has.”  De Niro is not the only one who is angry.  A great many, hopefully a large majority, of Americans are angry about the fundamental transformation of the country, a transformation that Hillary Clinton promises to continue.  These people are the deplorable “Never Clintons.”  Interestingly this is a rare species among Democrats.  Benghazi is irrelevant because it is in the past.  The fact that she has been labeled a liar by a very sympathetic FBI and that she lied to the families of the Benghazi victims makes no difference.  This election will be decided by the people voting against a candidate rather than for one.

A Line In The Sand - Why was it necessary to lie?

During the 9 October 2016 debate Donald Trump stated, “First of all, she's there with the so-called line in the sand.”  Hillary Clinton responded, “No, I wasn't. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you but at some point we needed to do some fact checking.”  Trump was obviously referring to Obama’s statement about Assad crossing a “red line” with the use of chemical weapons.  Hillary Clinton was States Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 until February 1, 2013.  The President made his “red line” statement in August 2012. Why was it necessary to lie?

The August 2012 statement
“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.”“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Never Clinton

Paul Ryan in effect has endorsed Hillary Clinton.  He calls himself conservative because that is the only way to be elected in his district.  He is an Arlen Specter.  He has voted consistently to back Obama’s spending program.  If Trump is elected a lot of things will be revealed.  There would even be some prominent Republicans going to jail.
Trump’s opponents’ outrage is synthetic.  They were looking for any excuse to oppose Trump.  Bill Clinton committed perjury.  That is an established fact. It may be brought up by the “moderators” (those media clowns selected by the “bipartisan” committee composed of Democrats and people like Paul Ryan.)  This article is a good example of what Trump is up against.  The author, Seema Mehta, is either stupid or dishonest. “His description of a Mexican American judge as incapable of judging a case fairly because of his heritage.”  Trump did not oppose this judge because he was Mexican.  He opposed him because he is biased as illustrated by his membership in La Rasa.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Is the President a Nincompoop? – Part II

How can anybody still take this fool seriously?  Obama is telling us that global warming has “contributed” to the Syrian civil war: “There’s already some really interesting work — not definitive, but powerful — showing that the droughts that happened in Syria contributed to the unrest and the Syrian civil war.”  Obama made these remarks alongside actor Leonardo DiCaprio.  DiCaprio is starring in a global warming film “Before the Flood.”  He will inevitably be testifying before Congress on the subject.  Starring in this film qualifies him as an expert on the subject.  In 1985 four actresses who had played farm wives in movies (Jane Fonda, Sissy Spacek, Jessica Lange, and Sally Field) testify before Democratic members of a House committee on Capitol Hill about the future of family farms.  Perhaps we can thank their expertise for the survival of the family farm.

This emphasis on climate change is a distraction from the real cause of tension in the Middle East.  It is unpatriotic to doubt the climate change thesis.  Obama claims, “we have members of Congress who scoff at climate change at the same time as they are saluting and wearing flag pins and extolling their patriotism they’re not paying attention to our Joints Chief of Staff and the Pentagon who are saying this is one of the most significant national security threats that we face over the next fifty years.”  Obama has encouraged regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  This has resulted in disaster.  U.S. News has reported, ”instances of terrorism have peaked, deaths in battle around the world are at a 25-year high, and the number of refugees and displaced people has reached a level not seen in sixty years.”  Obama is not solely responsible for this situation but his policies have contributed to it greatly.  Early in his term he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.  In 2011 Geraldo Rivera stated, “President Obama, whatever his failures are on the domestic side has proven to be one of our most efficient warrior leaders.” 

The legality of Obama’s policies has not been questioned by the press.  He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria. Apparently he has no problem invading Syrian airspace.  However, he appears to have been extremely cautious when the U.S. Ambassador was under attack in Benghazi.  He made no efforts to rescue the personnel there.  Of course he did need his rest for the upcomming campaign stop in Las Vegas.  The U.S. military have attacked Syrian military in Dayr Az Zawr.  This was described as an accident.  In an environment where conflict with Russia is a real possibility accidents can have serious consequences.  In some instances it appears that he is provoking the Russians.