Kamala Harris sits down with Fox News and Bret Baier and it does not go well for her.

Kamala Harris at a recent speech. New York Post/AP.

Kamala Harris sat down with Bret Baier of Fox News in her first challenging interview. New York Post. The 26 minute interview was widely viewed as a failure with Baier asking tough questions on immigration, Iran and the fitness of Joe Biden. Baier confronted Harris on her stance on immigration and told her about several victims of illegal aliens. Harris mostly responded with campaign talking points and though she expressed empathy for the deaths of folks killed by illegal immigrants, she did not take responsibility. Baier also showed Harris an ad from the Trump campaign that said Harris supports tax payer paid gender surgery, which Harris supports. Harris said that Trump had allowed the same surgeries to happen, while Baier said that it hadn't happened during his term at federal prisons. Baier was also critical of the Biden/Harris Iran policy, charging that Harris loosened sanctions, with Harris fired back that Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Harris was also confronted on the apparent senility of Joe Biden, but Harris refused to answer the question and again redirected to Donald Trump. 

 The full Fox News interview can be found at the end of this post.

 

My Comment:

This interview has been highly criticized on social media with only hardcore Harris supporters saying that she did well. I've been watching it myself, despite the fact that I can't stand her voice, and I think the critics are right. This was not a good interview for Harris. 

Why? Largely because Harris did not have good answers. She also talked over Bret Baier and came off as rude. When she did have answers they were mostly talking points. Those were her best moments as at least she was trying to sell herself. They were few and far between and sounded more like canned responses than a genuine discussion. 

Much worse is the fact that she kept trying to dodge questions and trying to switch things back to Donald Trump. To the credit with Bret Baier, he didn't let her get away with it, he kept asking the tough questions. When she still refused to answer the questions, most notably when he was confronting her over Joe Biden's senility, she kept dodging. This was terrible as it made her look like she couldn't even answer the question. I can remember her saying so many times "Let's go back to Donald Trump" which was just a joke. 

Her answers on immigration were not much better. Harris was confronted, probably for the first time, the name of three women, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, and Laken Riley, killed by illegal immigrants. Though Harris expressed sympathy for the dead, she did not take any responsibility for the deaths, which clearly could have been prevented with a sane immigration policy. Instead she tried to refocus on the bill that was unable to be passed in congress that would not have done much to stop illegal immigration and was DOA in the first place. Voters know Biden could have taken executive action to stop the invasion at the border and failed, so this non-answer is not going to be good for her. 

How should she have answered instead? The cowardly move would be to throw Biden under the bus. People may or may not buy it but it would at least been an answer. Another choice would be to accept at least some responsibility and say that they are going to do better. But she choose neither of these and it's going to hurt her. 

I also thought that Harris came off as argumentative and bossy. I am sure that some folks will appreciate her talking over the questions Baier was asking but I am not so sure that's a good idea. Harris has serious likability issues and can't get away with being rude like Trump is because Trump has the major advantage of being funny. Harris just came off as mean. Note that Baier also came off as fairly hostile and bossy, but the fact remains he's not running for President, he's just asking the kind of tough questions a presidential candidate should be able to handle without losing her temper. And Harris clearly lost her temper a few times during the interview. 

But the real problem is that Harris just didn't seem very smart. She's had weeks to prepare for this kind of interview and should have absolutely known what kind of questions a tough interviewer was going to ask. She should have had some kind of statement prepared for each question or at least have the wherewithal to come up with something. Instead she went into talking points and the already debated to death attacks on Donald Trump. Trump would have been better. So would JD Vance and Tim Walz. Hillary Clinton would have argued circles around Harris. But Harris? She seemed caught off guard and unprepared and had to go back to the Donald Trump well.  

Will this interview hurt Harris? It depends. I don't know how many Fox News viewers were even considering voting for her in the first place. But there could be a few "never Trump" Republicans that saw this interview and may decide that Trump isn't so bad after all. 

Regardless, the fact that Harris had to go into a hostile interview when interviews are pretty clearly a major weakness for her is a sign that her campaign is getting desperate. The summer of "vibes" is over and Harris has taken a major hit in the polls, to the point where if the polling has zero error whatsoever than Trump wins in an electoral college landslide (capturing all swing states). And if there is an error? Then Trump could win the popular vote as well  and perhaps take a couple of blue states like Minnesota, New Mexico and especially Virginia. 

This is why Harris has abandoned the Biden-style "campaigning from a basement" campaign effort. It wasn't working so she's been going to interviews everywhere and has even gone on some podcasts. She was even rumored to be going on Joe Rogan, but it would be insane to do that now. She absolutely needed to reset her campaign and try and get herself out there and win people over. But it does not seem to be having a good effect on her and may even be hurting her. Indeed, the more folks see of Kamala the less they like her. 

With all that being said, I do think that the social media folks are a bit too harsh on this interview. This was a bad day for Harris but it wasn't the end of her campaign. I don't think too many of her supporters are going to see it. And the folks that watch Fox News aren't going to be voting for Harris anyways. People aren't going to decide who they vote for because of one bad interview. It's going to be domestic issues like the economy and Trump's own good performance that will decide the 2024 election. 

Russia has taken back a large part of the Kursk incursion, pushing Ukraine out of Russian territory.

 

A M-28m "Havoc" helicopter near Kursk. The Telegraph/Russian Military photo.

Russia has taken back a large part of the Kursk incursion, pushing Ukraine out of Russian territory. The Telegraph. Russian sources say that half of the territory taken by Ukraine during their incursion has been retaken with Ukrainian troops retreating. The exact amount of territory retaken is disputed but even the pro-Ukraine Institute of the Study of War says at least 46% of the territory has been retaken, with other sources saying it was a 1/4 or 1/3rd. Ukraine is hampered by several factors in the incursion. Russia is more prepared for Ukraine's "rasputitsa", mud season, as they use more wheeled vehicles than tracked. Ukraine also has little option to defend the area as it is mostly open fields and there are little in the way of natural or constructed defenses. The full amount of territory that Ukraine had occupied is also disputed but 450 square miles is a common number. The attack boosted morale for Ukraine but has not had the effects that Ukraine desired as Russia has largely been able to keep up their offensives in other parts of Ukraine while defending and retaking the incursion. 

My Comment:

It's surprising to see such a Russia positive report in a British news outlet. Much of the reporting I have seen from British news sources are insanely pro-Ukraine and take the out and out propaganda from the UK's Ministry of Defense. Does this mean the media is finally cracking and are having to tell the truth? Perhaps. 

Ukraine was never going to be able to hold onto the Kursk incursion. Like the article said, there are little in the way of natural defenses in the area. There aren't any big cities and it's mostly just open fields. And Ukraine hardly had time to construct any trenches or bunkers. That means troops have little more than tree lines to take cover in, which is obviously a bad situation. 

Of course, Russia has the advantage of troops and technology. Ukraine didn't have that much left in terms of armor and troops and they lost a lot of them. And Russia was able to use their conscripts to fight these Ukrainians in the incursion, which is not something they were able to do legally in Ukraine. 

The worst part for Ukraine is the fact that they weren't able to actually accomplish much. Russia did not have to shift their forces around at all to deal with the incursion and they have remained on a steady offensive. Indeed, they seem to be advancing on all fronts, so this did not work as a distraction. And the supposed objective, the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, remains in Russian hands and was not destroyed. 

I really think that the Kursk offensive by Ukraine is going to go down as one of the biggest blunders in the war. It's the Ukrainian equivalent to the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, a last desperate offensive that had no real chance of victory. Or even perhaps the World War II battle of Kursk, which was widely thought of as the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany. The troops, vehicles and weapons that were, and are being, wasted for little purpose. 

I also think that the mud season is not really going to slow things down too much for Russia. I do think that it will probably stall out a major breakthrough until the ground freezes, but Russia hasn't really been using the kind of tactics that would be slowed down by the mud. Russia has been using small units of infantry to probe the lines and also using lightning motorcycle attacks. Neither of those things are really affected by mud too much. 

This winter is  going to be very bad for Ukraine. They are continuing to lose villages and cities and they are getting close to the last lines of constructed defenses. And if that isn't bad enough, Ukraine is likely to lose power over the winter, Russia will probably not hold back from striking Ukraine's nuclear power plants. Even if the winter is mild like last year's, things will not go well for Ukraine without power... 

Boots on the ground in Israel. Biden deploys THAAD system to Israel.

 

File photo of the THAAD launcher. BBC/AFP.

The Biden administration is deploying 100 troops to Israel to operate a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery. BBC. Joe Biden said the move is to defend Israel which recently came under attack from Iran. Israel is rumored to be targeting Iran in another tit-for-tat strike in response to Iran's attack, which was in response to several attacks on Hezbollah by Israel. It is unclear why the THAAD battery is being deployed, Israel has a well developed air defense system including their own anti-ballistic missile systems, the Arrow-2 and Arrow-3's. However, several of Iran's ballistic missiles appeared to pass through these systems and Israel's Iron Dome system, raising questions about the effectiveness of the system and fears Israel is running out of weapons. The US has assisted Israel in shooting down missiles before, mostly using their ships posted in the Red Sea, but this is the first time US forces would be deployed in Israel. The THAAD battery consists of six trucks armed with 48 missiles and costs a billion dollars and requires 100 troops to operate them. 

My Comment:

Though most Americans support Israel, I get the feeling that this deployment will be unpopular. The most recent polling I have seen on this issue says 56% of Americans are opposed to sending troops to Israel if they are attacked by Iran. That poll was from August so it's possible things have changed since then.  

The small scale of the deployment could change things. There are only 100 troops in this deployment and it's unlikely they will be targeted directly. The Russians have become effective at targeting anti-air systems in Ukraine but I don't think Iran is on that level. It's unlikely that these troops will be attacked and if they are it's unlikely anyone will be injured or killed. 

Will one battery make much of a difference? I guess it could. The last attack Iran pulled was 180 ballistic missiles so 48 missiles wouldn't be enough to intercept them all. But with the fleet in the Red Sea and Israel's own formidable defenses it should help. But it's going to be a one shot deployment unless we are going to send replacement missiles. And these weapons aren't cheap, it's a $1 billion for the whole system. Some of that is the vehicles and computers but the missiles themselves aren't cheap at $12.6 per missiles. This could get pretty costly for the United States quickly. 

I also think that this deployment is a pretty big hint that Israel is going to respond to Iran's missile attack. They have been pretty cagey and are obviously distracted by their invasion in Lebanon, which appears to have been fairly low key so far. But a response looks like it is going to happen. And when it does, depending on what form it is, Iran is likely to launch another attack, especially if Israel targets their nuclear and energy production. 

There's a real fear that there is going to be a large scale war. But I also fear that this will just be the status quo in the Middle East. Neither Israel or Iran are really powerful enough to destroy each other unless they use nuclear weapons, and maybe not even then. Cooler heads have to prevail but right now they are stuck in a cycle of revenge, both sides have to respond or lose a lot of face. 

Which is why I am mostly opposed to this deployment. Though I am more sympathetic to Israel than their enemies, I do not support sending troops there. We don't really need to get involved in a cycle of revenge that could just go on forever now. If Israel wants our THAAD batteries they should buy it from us, not have them given to them. 

I am also worried about how much of our weapons we are expending for questionable purposes. We already have deployed so many of our best weapons to Ukraine that it will take years, maybe even decades, to build up our weapons. And now we are sending our best anti-ballistic missiles to Israel? How are we ever going to rebuild our weapons if we are burning through them this fast? 

Armed man arrested at Trump's California campaign event at Coachella.

 

The Trump rally at Coachella California. New York Post/USA Today.

An armed man was arrested at Donald Trump's campaign event at Coachella California, raising fears of another assassination attempt. New York Post. The 49 year old suspect is named Vem Miller and was arrested after presenting a phony press pass. He was discovered with a handgun, shotgun and California illegal magazine, along with additional phony documents. The local sheriff, Chad Bianco, said that the incident was a third assassination attempt on Donald Trump. However, both the Secret Service and the FBI do not believe this was one and the suspect says the idea that he was an attempted assassination was "complete bullshit". Miller was able to talk to the press because he was released on a $5000 bond. Miller is a member of the Sovereign Citizens movement, which does not recognize federal authority over citizens. Ironically, the FBI says that Miller was not attempting to assassinate Trump and said that he had the weapons for personal protection only. 

EDIT: Fox News has put up an interview with Miller who denies he is a Sovereign Citizen, says his documents are legit and says he would never harm Trump because he supports him. 

My Comment:

Strange story out of California and one that is fairly confusing. There is a pretty dramatic disagreement between this local sheriff and the federal government as to what this guy was trying to do. Was he trying to attack Donald Trump? Did he have some other plan? Or was he just an idiot that decided to go to a Trump rally with guns in his vehicle and fake documents? 

Miller is a Sovereign Citizen and admittedly that group is fairly dangerous. However they don't seem to be the kind of folks that would assassinate a presidential candidate. They don't recognize federal or state authority so the folks most at risk from Sovereign Citizens are people that enforce that authority, like local police or federal agents. 

I have actually met a few Sovereign Citizens and, hilariously enough, despite the stereotype of them being angry White guys, in both cases they were black men. I never got the idea that they were really dangerous, just very misguided and with little actual understanding of the law. Indeed, one of them sued the company they were working for because they took money out for federal taxes. I never heard how that case played out but I can't imagine it did well.  

I don't know why a Sovereign Citizen would want to harm Donald Trump. I don't think they would like him since he's trying to be in charge of the federal government, but to attack him? It doesn't make sense to me. There are people on the "right" that don't like Trump, but they are either neocons that have largely been kicked out of the Republican Party or out and out white nationalists like Nick Fuentes that hate Trump because he isn't racist. 

The only thing that makes me think that this could be legit is the fact that he had fake documents to try and get into the media area. It's very possible that was just him being an idiot, trying to scam his way to better seats, but it's also possible that he wanted to get close enough to get a shot at Trump. It was a terrible plan regardless, he wasn't going to fool the people working security and even if he did it would have been very hard to get a gun that close to a former President. 

I actually think that the FBI and Secret Service is right, this was not an assassination attempt. The fact that this guy is out on bail is a big hint that nobody really thinks this was a real attempt. I am guessing that the local sheriff is trying to hype up what his guys did, which, to be fair, was good police work. I don't see Miller getting charged with anything other than the gun crimes he committed. 

What do  I think actually happened? Well, Miller is the kind of person that thinks that the rules don't apply to him so he printed out fake documents because he wanted to see the Trump rally up close. He had guns in his car because of course he did, he's a Sovereign Citizen and they generally don't recognize any gun laws, especially the ones in California. Security caught him with his fake documents and the sheriff is hyping the story for local political reasons. 

Still, under the current political climate, can anyone be blamed for being nervous about this situation? There is no question in my mind that Miller is absolutely the kind of guy you don't want anywhere near a presidential candidate that has already undergone two assassination attempts, one of which injured him. I am certainly glad that they were able to catch this guy even though I think it is unlikely that this was an actual attempt on Donald Trump's life... 

Are North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine for Russia?

 

Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin. The Guardian/AFP/KNS.

Ukraine and South Korea claim that North Korean troops are actively fighting in the Ukraine conflict for Russia. The Guardian. They claim there are dozens of North Korean troops operating North Korean KN-23 missiles. Supposedly North Korean engineers were killed in a strike behind enemy lines. Foreign fighters are common on both sides of the conflict but if North Korea were sending troops to participate in the fighting it would be first time a country has done so. North Korea has provided a large number of weapons to Russia and would stand to gain from sending troops as they could gain experience and evaluate the effectiveness of weapons. The KN-23 missiles are short range ballistic missiles developed by North Korea and have proven effective in strikes against Ukraine. 

Russia, for its part, says the reports of North Koreans fighting in Ukraine are "fake news". 

My Comment:

It's hilarious to see the hand wringing over this story. The elephant in the room is that NATO troops have been unofficially participating in the war for years. Many of the more advanced weapons we have given Ukraine, like our Patriot missile batteries and various long range missiles, are being manned by "volunteers" (ie active duty troops put on leave and fighting as mercenaries) from various NATO countries. To whine about Russia doing the same thing is a joke. 

But is it even true? It's possible. The KN-23 is a North Korean developed weapon and it's very possible that Russia cannot operate these weapons themselves. Just like NATO weapons it might require specialists trained in the operation of these weapons. Indeed, it's probably more likely than not, it's literally rocket science. 

There are other reasons as well. The KH-23 had never been used in combat before it showed up in Ukraine and I am guessing they needed to evaluate the effectiveness. These weapons do appear to be effective and I think the North Koreans are pleased. It's win-win for both parties as well, as Russia obviously gets some much needed fire support. These weapons are extremely powerful and can do a lot of damage to Ukranian positions. I do wonder how accurate these weapons are, but that's what the North Koreans want to find out. 

It's possible that the story is fake news. Russia certainly has a lot of experience with ballistic missiles and perhaps the weapon is easier to operate than we think. Given the support Russia has given North Korea it's even possible they helped a bit with development. And it's also possible that the North Korean troops were only there for a very short time for training Russians and evaluating the missiles. I think that this possibility is probably less likely than North Koreans actually being in the country. Though if they are there I have zero idea if some of those troops were killed, it's obviously very possible but I don't trust either side to tell the truth. 

I actually think that North Korea would probably gain from sending some actual ground troops to Ukraine as well. North Korea hasn't been involved in a war in a very long time and it would do them well to form a cadre of troops that have at least some experience in combat. And the fighting they could see in Ukraine would be similar to what they could see in a major conflict with South Korea (and possibly the United States). 

Regardless, the real story continues to be the steady rate of advance that Russia is seeing in Ukraine now. These North Korean missiles are a small part of this, but the real problem for Ukraine is that Russia's attritional warfare is working. Ukraine just doesn't have the soldiers left to continue the fight and keep losing a ton of troops. They are running out of weapons and troops and probably time as well...