I didn’t cover the first few because North Korea launching a couple of missiles isn’t really major news anymore. But we’re already on our fifth — yes, fifth — missile launch of the night. Clearly these are developments out of the ordinary.

Each and every one of the middle-range missile tests violate United Nations resolutions and international law. So we can basically expect the response from the international community to be UN resolutions and condemnations. In other words, the cycle of stupidity continues unabated.

Update: BNO News confirms a sixth missile launch from the DPRK. Gee, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say that Kim Jong-Il simply doesn’t take the international community and the United States that seriously anymore. It’s almost as if he knows he can do what he wants and they’ll do nothing other than send an angry letter in respose.

I’m sure there are members of the media and left (but I repeat myself) who will attempt to credit this to Obama’s plan for Iraq, but the military is actually meeting a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated and approved back in 2008.

It’s quite remarkable, really. As James Joyner says, the headline for the handover itself would’ve seemed like a dream not too long ago. But the surge and stabilization we’ve witnessed in the past 2 years has made the hand-over possible.

A countdown clock broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to bases outside cities.

“The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty.”

As they should. Even the craziest aspects of the world can now see that the United States’ goal was never the permanent occupation of the Republic of Iraq, but rather the establishment of a stable, democratic government that would be beholden to its citizens.

Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the capital.

“All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on this day,” Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated at the park. “The Americans harmed and insulted us too much.”

Of course, there are still those who hold onto anti-American feelings, people on whom irony is lost. al-Bahadili is able to stand there, speaking his mind freely because of the actions of American troops. And he uses that opportunity to complain about the Americans. Oy vey.

In a ceremony rich with symbolism, the top U.S. military commander in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Daniel Bolger, gave his Iraqi counterpart the keys to the former defense ministry building, which had served as a joint base.

“On the eve of the 30th of June 2009 in accord with a security agreement between Iraq and America, Iraqis take the lead in Baghdad,” Bolger said.

The withdrawal, required under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact, marks the first major step toward withdrawing all American forces from the country by Dec. 31, 2011. Obama has said all combat troops will be gone by the end of August 2010.

How the president intends to accomplish that isn’t clear, of course. More than 130,000 American troops remain in the country with about 14 months left until Obama’s deadline. Military planners have already declared a 16-month withdrawal period an impossible deadline to meet.

Anyway, this is a great sign for the future of Iraq. Now is the time to pray that the relative peace holds.

The Obama Administration is reconsidering inviting representatives of the oppressive Iranian regime to Fourth of July celebrations at American embassies, CNN reports. Apparently inviting oppressive, murderous governments to celebrate ideals such as freedom and democracy has proven more controversial than the White House expected.

The Obama administration is seriously considering not extending invitations to Iranian diplomats for July 4 celebrations overseas, senior administration officials tell CNN.

The officials said intense discussions on the issue were taking place, but the final decision had not been made.

Late last month the State Department sent a cable to its embassies and consulates worldwide informing them they “may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their July 4th celebrations. …

But officials said the violence against protesters that has ensued since the June 12 election has caused the administration to rethink the timing of such engagement.

One senior administration official said Wednesday the reconsideration of the July 4th invitations is consistent with Obama’s comments Tuesday, in which he said he was “shocked and appalled” at the violence against demonstrators.

Excuse me, but Iran was a murderous, oppressive regime long before the protest violence violence the world has witnessed as of late. Iran beats women for inappropriate clothing, hangs its citizens for being gay, has been declared a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department, and supported the insurgency in Iraq that killed American soldiers. It’s not like we just discovered that a close friend is a serial killer.

Via Hot Air.

Because really, what other motivation could there possibly be for his criticism of the Obama Administration? If you’re vocally defending your record and criticizing the sitting administration, well, you must be hoping for a terrorist attack on American soil.

You know, CIA director Leon Panetta is right! I’ve been watching former Vice President Dick Cheney’s media parade of the last few weeks and wondering, “What is he up to?” It’s unseemly for a former president, much less a vice president, to dissect and criticize the policies of a subsequent administration, especially so soon after that vice president has left office. And yet Cheney has said publicly President Obama’s abandonment of waterboarding as an interrogation technique is, “unwise in the extreme.”

I must have missed the left’s outrage over Al Gore’s criticism of the Bush Administration not too long into the “subsequent administration”. Since when do former administration members hold back their criticism of their successors? That hasn’t been the rule for quite some time. Cheney’s following precedent.

In an interview in an upcoming edition of the New Yorker Panetta said Cheney seems so anxious to justify the Bush administration’s interrogation/torture policies, it almost seems as if he’d appreciate another terrorist attack on U.S. soil:

Actually, Cheney seems so anxious to justify the Bush Administration’s policies that he wants the currently-secret memos that show the success o said policies to be released. Hence his call for the release of all the memos now that Obama’s opened the box.

And another thing. Why has Cheney been out there campaigning and defending Bush administration policies? Is he running for something? And why is former President Bush playing golf and enjoying retirement while Cheney hogs the media circuit? One wag noted, “It’s just more evidence of who was really in charge during the Bush administration.”

Why is he out there defending the former administration’s policies? Possibly because he wants to not only vindicate the much-aligned policies that kept America safe, but to correct the record on his time in office. You know, a bit of a legacy. Perhaps doing such a thing is unheard of in Bonnie Erbe’s world.

As for President Bush’s silence, he feels that he should remain silent at this point. That’s his personal decision. All do respect to the former president, but he did a horrifc job of defending his policies and record even while in office. He and Cheney have disagreed on issues in the past, including on gay marriage. Such is life and politics.

Does Erbe really think that Cheney would want Americans killed in order to prove that he’s right? Americans already agree that torture can be justified to protect the country. Opposing his policies are one thing. Thinking he wants innocent Americans to suffer and die for vindication of his policies is quite another.

Via Hot Air.

I can understand how Rush Limbaugh’s comments about hoping for Obama to fail were misconstrued to indicate that he was hoping for Obama to fail as Commander-in-Chief. He wasn’t, of course, but I can understand how lefties could make the connection. The comment could easily be twisted.

But how, in the name of all that is holy, does one take Dick Cheney’s concern over national security and the safety of his countrymen and turn it into him hoping for the United States to be attacked? That’s some serious twisting.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Former vice president Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of security matters suggests he wants the United States to be attacked, CIA chief Leon Panetta said.

“I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue,” Panetta told The New Yorker magazine for its June 22 edition.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

Yeah, I’m sure the former vice president with no political aspirations but correcting the record of the past eight years is hoping for the deaths of fellow Americans. I’m sure he’s that invested in proving that enhanced interrogation techniques are effective, especially considering that any attack launched at this point would likely have been in the planning stages since long before Obama took office and the Bush Administration would be blamed by the media. That makes plenty of sense.

The comments by Cheney, regarded by many as one of the most powerful vice presidents in US history, were “dangerous politics,” Panetta said.

Asked whether he agreed with the intelligence chief, Vice President Joe Biden told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would not question Cheney’s motives.

However, he added: “Dick Cheney’s judgment about how to secure America is faulty. I think our judgment is correct.”

Yeah, we’ll see. Polls show that Americans agree that torture can be justified to protect the nation, Congressional leaders understood that EITs were necessary until it became politically inopportune a few years back, and the Bush/Cheney policy changes following 9/11 kept the country safe for seven years. So far the Bush/Cheney team have a record of success in protecting the nation with their policies, while the effectiveness of Obama/Biden team policies is yet to be determined.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Not so much news as a confirmation of our suspicions. How does a man who appears to be going down in flames win the election with over 60% of the vote? We’re not talking a slim majority there. And then there’s this:

U.S. analysts find it “not credible” that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results “final” and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections…

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama’s gestures of engagement.

So basically the election was a charade, keeping in power the man Khameini wanted while pretending to care about democracy and free elections. The Iranian people were lead to believe that their voices count in the governing of their nation. Instead, their voices were suppressed and the election stolen. And just how badly rigged was the election?

By Saturday morning, the most often repeated exclamation in Tehran was: “It’s not possible!”…

A group of young men said they had talked to their families in the provinces, including Kurdish Kermanshah, Azeri Oroumiyeh and Ardeblil. Mohsen, 23, said, “Everyone in Tabriz [Mousavi's hometown] voted for Mousavi. The official count says a majority for Ahmadinejad. That’s not possible.” Mehdi, 27, chimed in, “Even if just Karroubi’s family in Lorestan had voted for him, he would have won more than 300,000 votes.”

More serious allegations came from officials involved in the various reformist candidates’ campaigns. Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, part of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi’s campaign, pointed out that the government “announced a wholesale figure of 70% for Ahmadinejad last night, as opposed to breaking it down province by province as they usually do.” The first figures were announced shortly after voting closed, he added. A breakdown of how people in each city and province voted has not been released yet.

At the Mousavi headquarters, former Interior Minister Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour protested that Mousavi observers had not gained access to many of the polling centers. He also said that in Tabriz, Mousavi’s birthplace, many of the polling stations had run out of ballots only two hours after opening, even though about 59 million ballots had been printed by the government, about 13 million more than the number of eligible voters.

I’d make a crack about ACORN opening an office in Tehran, but this is far too serious for levity. Reports indicate that street violence has broken out, Mousavi himself may have been arrested, protesters are chanting anti-government rhetoric outside government buildings, police are beating protesters, former Iranian president Rafsanjani has resigned from the Expediency Council to protest the election results, and the number of tactics used to suppress the people are growing by the hour.

So, how is the Obama Administration reacting? By promising to continue pressing for negotiations with the now-illegitimate government of Iran. Craptastic.

Fox News reports exclusively that North Korea will respond to the upcoming UNSC resolution by conducting a nuclear test, launching a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile, and more. Apparently the DPRK could care less about what the UNSC condemns.

U.S. intelligence officials have warned President Obama and other senior American officials that North Korea intends to respond to the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution this week — condemning the communist country for its recent nuclear and ballistic missile tests — with another nuclear test, FOX News has learned.

What’s more, Pyongyang’s next nuclear detonation is but one of four planned actions the Central Intelligence Agency has learned, through sources inside North Korea, that the regime of Kim Jong-Il intends to take — but not announce — once the Security Council resolution is officially passed, likely on Friday.

The other three actions include the reprocessing of all of the North’s spent plutonium fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium; a major escalation in the North’s uranium-enrichment program; and the launching of another Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile from the Yunsong military complex on the west coast of North Korea. The North last launched a Taepodong-2 on April 5; it conducted its second nuclear test in the last three years on Memorial Day.

The intelligence community only learned of North Korea’s plans this week, prompting CIA to alert senior officials. Asked who would be briefed on this kind of data, a source told FOX News: “The top people: POTUS, DNI.” “POTUS” is acronym for the president of the United States; “DNI” refers to the director of the Office of National Intelligence.

No doubt this provocation, sparked by a strongly-worded memo condemnding the previous provocation, will result in a strongly-worded memo from the UNSC, which will result in another provocation. Perhaps even a visit from Hans Blix (Content Warning) is in store for Kim.

Seriously though, this round-about has become so pathetic that it’s laughable. If President Obama wanted to show Kim how serious we are about stopping the North’s nuclear program, he might consider utilizing our Aegis systems to take out the ballistic missile mid-flight. But, as Ed Morrissey says, we’ll be lucky to get a strong statement of condemnation from the White House.

Question: Does the Obama Administration view high-value terrorists picked up on foreign battlefields as regular criminals or enemy combatants at war with the United States? Because if it’s the latter, why are we reading these guys Miranda Rights?

For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”

As The Weekly Standard points out, there were warning signs in the May 28th edition of the Los Angeles Times. There were plans to turn the war on terror into a criminal investigation:

The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the “global justice” initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

Anyone with a functioning brain should be concerned with this development. Not only is the president turning a war between the free world and jihadists into a criminal investigation, but the rights terrorists are read can prove dangerous.

“When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the ‘right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”

And yet the administration and lefty groups are more interested in ensuring terrorists are read their rights than a future terrorist attack is prevented. In fact, according to Mike Rogers, groups such as The International Red Cross go into detention facilities and advise the detained terrorists to fully utilize their rights.

Rogers adds: “The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”

One thing is clear, though. A detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. Had Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had a lawyer, Tenet wrote, “I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people.”

I recall scoffing from the left at the mere suggestion during the campaign that a President Obama and Democratic Congress would be reading terrorists their rights. In fact, I recall President Obama brushing off the claim:

“Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.”

And yet here we are, reading terrorists their Miranda rights like a shoplifter down the block. Every promise has an expiration date.

More: Hot Air.

One of the most crucial aspects of true national security today is a missile defense shield. Until we’re capable of protecting America from any rogue nuclear state that wants to effectively hold us hostage under the threat of hitting us with a nuclear-armed ICBM, we’re left exposed to insane dictators with equally insane agendas. We can retaliate for a strike on our soil, yes, but you’re still left without the option of actually stopping the missile before it kills Americans.

Chuck Devore, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from California, discusses Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)’s stance on the issue. Let’s just say, it’s a less than ideal record.

There’s growing concern that he might be punishing the wrong party in the dispute, and that President Hopenchange may not be the greatest ally Israel has ever known. Bunch of geniuses we have up on Capitol Hill.

“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”

“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said…

But even a key defender of Obama’s Mideast policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), is seeking to narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama. And the unusual criticism by congressional Democrats of the popular president is a sign that it may take more than a transformative presidential election to change the domestic politics of Israel.

Other Democrats, in interviews with POLITICO, raised similar concerns. While few will defend illegal Jewish outposts on land they hope will be part of a Palestinian state, they question putting public pressure on Israel while — so far — paying less public attention to Palestinian terrorism and other Arab states’ hostility to Israel.

The wisdom? Everyone together now: He attended a church that printed the Hamas manifesto in its bulletin. He attended parties for an anti-Israeli supporter of the Palestinian jihad. He made promises to AIPAC that he swiftly backed down from.

“There’s a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who said he’d heard complaints from constituents during the congressional recess. “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.”

“I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who said he thinks there’s “room for compromise.”

“I have to hear specifically from the administration exactly how they define their terms and is there room for defining the terms,” he said, referring to the terms “settlement” and “natural growth.”

The Obama Administration has its priorities entirely screwed up. It hands over $900 million to Palestine while looking for ways to punish Israel. It finds ways to bide Iran time to complete its nuclear program, while it threatens negative repercussions if Israel gets tired of standing around the ticking time bomb and acts against the threat. It would seem that some Democrats are coming around to that realization.