The Nazis used the term “Judenfrei,” free of Jews or clean of Jews, when all of the Jewish residents were removed from a city or town, or even a whole country, as was the case with Estonia in 1942.
The Islamic State is working to create a new Middle East that is Christianfrei–free of Christians–in the region where the faith was founded in 33 AD, 500 years before the birth of Muhammad.
ISIS is enslaving and killing Christians in Iraq–and Christian and girls and women are being regularly raped, as is also the case in Syria. Libya has a miniscule Christian population, but that hasn’t prevented the Islamic State from killing Christians there–21 Egyptian Coptics were beheaded last month in a grisly execution videotaped by the terror group.
Egypt and Lebanon are the other Middle Eastern nations with sizable Christian populations. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the president of Egypt, responded to the murder of his citizens by bombing ISIS positions in Libya and although a Muslim, al-Sisi has been a harsh critic of radical Islam. As for Lebanon, a newspaper there claims that it will be the next target for the Islamic State.
While condemnations of ISIS atrocities are for the most part universal, there has been little uproar over the Islamic State’s effort to religiously cleanse the Middle East of the Christian faith, unlike the ethnic cleansing campaign by Serbia–which was eventually stopped–in Kosovo and Bosnia.
“Never again!” was the cry after the Holocaust. Seventy years after the liberation of Auschwitz, another Holocaust is well under way.
As you might have heard Egypt has decided to hit ISIS over the public murder of a bunch of its Christian citizens in addition to that strike there have been several developments:
On Monday, el-Sissi visited the main Coptic Cathedral of St. Mark in Cairo to offer his condolences on the Egyptians killed in Libya, according to state TV.
Combined with the his previous visit with the Coptic pope which amazed Egyptian Christians and his blunt pronouncement that Islam must reform itself the government that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood is taking unprecedented steps to recognize Egypt Christians as full members of the Egyptian community while pushing back against radical Islam.
Saudi Arabia’s King Salman held talks in Riyadh Tuesday with Qatar’s emir, in what an analyst sees as part of a regional effort to strengthen ties against the Islamic State (IS) group.
Qatar’s Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is the latest Gulf leader to visit Riyadh this week, after Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan and Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, the emir of Kuwait.
He and the Saudi monarch discussed the enhancement of their relations, as well as international developments, the official Saudi Press Agency said.
The accession of King Salman in Saudi Arabia has caused glimmers of hope among Muslim Brotherhood exiles in Qatar that the Middle East’s political winds have started to shift in their favour, potentially giving the Islamist group more space to act.
King Salman is more sympathetic to religious conservatives than his predecessor Abdullah and is seen as less hostile to the group, but analysts and diplomats in Riyadh say any adjustment to Saudi policy towards the Brotherhood is likely to be minimal.
If we are seeing an actual divide among Arab nations between Islamists and non Islamists that could be huge for the region.
It will be interesting to see which side our administration decides to take.
The following text is the first part of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The last time that I reminded readers of its existence was in 2011, when President Obama decided, without congressional authority, to pull the rug out from under Muammar Qaddafi.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
There are some who dispute the constitutionality of the Act, but I don’t think it matters anymore. I don’t think that President Obama ever got the approval of Congress for the incursion in Libya and I don’t think he will bother to get one for this war in Syria–which he is pursuing with a coalition of ten nations. Interesting number, that.
What I do expect: more unchecked tyranny by the person in the Oval Office.
Well maybe the world has stopped paying attention that hasn’t stopped the blood from flowing:
Earlier Saturday we woke on another terrible news , another 6 Egyptian conscripts from Military Police were killed in a military checkpoint in the city of Mostord , Qaliubyia gveronorate.
Well in fairness it wasn’t completely ignored. There was coverage in the times of Israel:
Gunmen killed six soldiers at a Cairo checkpoint Saturday in a brazen morning attack the military blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood movement of deposed president Mohammed Morsi.The attack came two days after gunmen killed a soldier in Cairo, as militants once largely confined to the restive Sinai Peninsula increasingly target the capital in a campaign that has killed more than 200 police and soldiers since the army overthrew Morsi last July.
Islamist militants have killed hundreds of police and soldiers in numerous attacks.The military accused Mr Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood of carrying out this latest attack, which was carried out as the soldiers took part in dawn prayers.The Brotherhood denies involvement in violence, saying it is committed to peaceful campaigning.
The government also ordered heightened security measures to counter what has become a low-level insurgency that has killed more 200 soldiers and policemen since Morsi’s overthrow.Most of the attacks since have been carried out in the Sinai, but militants have expanded their reach to the Nile Delta and the capital in recent months.
While we in the west continue to ignore this Egyptian blogger is asking questions
In any respectable democratic country both the ministers of defense and interior would be sitting right now in front of the National security committee in a real elected parliament to discuss the development of that war they declared on terrorism.Why were not there enough security precautions when a terrorist group like Ansar Beit Al Maqids released a video 48 hours prior to the operation ??Ansar Beit Al Maqids released a very alarming video last Thursday which deserves a whole post, hopefully I will write it this week.I am not a security expert but this attack reminds so much with the first attack against our soldiers in Sinai in August 2012 when they were killed while they were eating their Ramadan breakfast. That horrifying attack should have taught us something.
The Pentagon says that a team of Navy SEALs has boarded the oil freighter “Morning Glory” in the Mediterranean that had been seized by three armed Libyans. No one was hurt in the raid, which took place late Sunday in international waters off of Cyprus. The ship and its illicit cargo of Libyan oil will now be sailed back to Libya under the control of U.S. Navy sailors
Recently on live TV, Sheikh Abdul Maqsud, an Islamic jurisprudent, issued a fatwa obligating “Muslims” (in this context, Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt) to engage in acts of terror against “infidels” (in this context, the Egyptian government and anyone else opposing the Brotherhood).
Hey at least this guy is an equal opportunity terrorist, anyone not in the fold is a legit target.
It’s Tuesday my wife’s birthday and we’re Still at $47 toward our goal of $365 to pay the mortgage and the writer.
Without 13 $25 tip jar hits we will have no prospect of making mortgage this month.
We’ve done a lot in the last 10 days from CPAC to NLRC. but it can’t be done without you.
With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.
Major General Gunther Blumentritt:This is history. We are living a historical moment. We are going to lose the war because our glorious Führer has taken a sleeping pill and is not to be awakened. It’s unbelievable. Think of it Kurt. Don’t ever forget it. We are witnessing something that historians will always say is completely improbable, and yet it is true. The Führer is not to be awakened! I sometimes wonder whose side God is on
The Longest Day 1962
Lt. Kaminsky:You wanted confirmation, Captain? Take a look! There’s your confirmation!
Then came the Denver Debate and the New Yorker Cover, conservatives laughed and liberals panicked.
While some thought it a joke and some thought it a farce the true meaning of the empty chair was never clearer than it was at the Benghazi hearings.
Under questioning from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta could not explain why President Barack Obama spoke with him only once on Sept. 11, 2012 during the Benghazi terrorist attack, and never called back for any updates for over seven hours.
The actual testimony is astounding:
Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC)….And my question to you is during that eight-hour period, did the president show any curiosity about how’s this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people? Did he ever make that phone call?
SEC. PANETTA: Look, there is no question in my mind that the president of the United States was concerned about American lives and, frankly, all of us were concerned about American lives.
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, are we helping these people; what’s happening to them?
Ed Morrissey is incredulous as is Ace over the statements of the head of the Joint Chiefs of staff (as well he should be) but for all of that incompetence of man with the stars and all the snark of the Leon “Global 911” Panetta there is only one story here:
The story is that on 9/11 during an attack on Americans in Benghazi (including a person he knew personally) the President of the United States was uninterested.
One of the most amazing things about the Benghazi story has been the spinning of it.
A successful attack on the US on the anniversary of 9/11 resulting in the death of a US Ambassador for the first time in over 30 years caused the press to launch an unrelenting attack on…then candidate Mitt Romney for intemperate words.
Nevermind the words were about Egypt, never mind that Americans were killed, nevermind that the administration falsely claimed it was all over a youtube video, apologized concerning the video and even now has the maker of said movie imprisoned. When Benghazi was talked about at all before the election, it was in the context of: “Boy that Mitt Romney is a nasty guy isn’t he?”
With the president safely re-elected the conversation started to change, the house planned hearing and some in the Senate starting showing backbone but the MSM had absolutely no interest in the story.
It’s certainly a national security issue but it doesn’t rise to the level of four dead Americans
That’s the bottom line, the MSM would like up to forget the four dead Americans and the lies that were told but now we’ve got babes and boobs so the story isn’t going anywhere, and yesterday’s Senate press conference provoked a direct response from the President.
Suddenly Benghazi is news, and it’s news the day of the House hearings with Petraeus testifying tomorrow.
None of this attention happens without the babes, the boobs and the sex. None of it!
It’s not fair, it’s a terrible thing that the only way these guys are going to get a chance at justice is because of a booty call.
But if it’s the only way this is going to happen, I’ll take it.
There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .
It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.) If Hillary threw Obama under the bus would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.
What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.
The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:
It is a statesman like move, going forward and not ducking responsibility in a way nobody has been willing to do.
It covers her, by taking responsibility it heads off all kinds of stories that might come up with a theme of finding fault. Why should congress investigate to pin blame when it’s already been accepted?
It supports the president, by taking the blame she shields the first Black president both showing herself a good soldier to the party and most importantly to the black community.
It undermines Obama by making her look strong, and him look weak. He is now forced to make some kind of statement second as a response. It’s the 3 AM phone call with her answering while he goes to Vegas.
It ends press coverage on what the Obama Administration should do next, blame assigned move on.
It doesn’t end coverage it changes it. What will the president do about this? It puts Obama in a box. Blame is assigned so what is the punishment? If Hillary is responsible does he ask for her resignation, does he fire her? With his electoral prospects already sinking he dare not do either, and God help him if she resigns on her own. It would be another example of her acting while he is paralyzed. It is the final act of Carterization of the president.
It makes her vulnerable as every commentator on the right calls for her head in the hope of embarrassing Obama and taking her down a peg.
It gets her in good with the base of her party. I can see the fundraising e-mails now. “She’s taken responsibility and those nasty right wingers are piling on” This will coin money for her. That doesn’t even take into account how the press will react.
It hurts her 2016 election prospects after all she is responsible for an attack on the US on the Anniversary of 9/11 no less.
Not only does this make her look presidential (Expect comparisons to JFK’s Bay of Pigs speech from the MSM) but it neutralizes her primary opponents on the subject, in fact for the second time in twelve years she will be able to paint herself as the victim of the irresponsibility of a man who should have known better.
It hands President Romney a ready-made issue in 2016 to use.
It puts Romney in a box. Every president has foreign policy failures and Mitt will have his share. Imagine the debate answer: “President Romney is right. I was secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle and I took full responsibility for it. What I would like to know is when the president will take responsibility for (insert relevant issue here)”. It will put and keep Mitt on the defensive.
The Bottom line is forgetting all the national security and moral issues involved. Hillary has done the thing that most helps her in the long run while all the time managing to undermine her foes on both the left and the right in one fell swoop.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do, it IS but as usual the right thing is generally the smart thing and this was the smartest thing anyone in this administration has done in a while.
This story may continue, but in terms of its negative impact there will be little if any on Hillary Clinton from this point on.
Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”
Update 2: On Morning Joe Hillary Clinton compared to JFK. Think about it, in under 12 hours Hillary goes from: “The person responsible for a disaster” to JFK saying “defeat is an orphan”.
Today is day one of campaign 2016.
Update 3: Captain Ed Morrissey (he will always be Captain Ed to me) NAILS it:
It’s a jaw-dropping display of a leadership vacuum, which Hillary ended up having to fill herself. This is exactly what Hillary warned voters about in 2008. The contrast between her moment of leadership in this crisis and Obama’s lack of leadership since the very beginning of it will not help Obama make the case for another four years of buck-passing at the top, not even when Obama showed leadership on the Nicki Minaj-Mariah Carey feud.
During a debate with Sean Bielat the Democrat nominee was bluntly asked if he would be getting the attention he is as a candidate for Congress if his name wasn’t Joe Kennedy This recording of his answer told me something…
…it tells he has more of a future re-recording classic David Seville songs from the 50’s than as a maker of the nations laws.
If you aren’t familiar with the hit in question here it is:
If I was Joe Kennedy I’d be pretty embarrassed, on the bright side he didn’t say anything as stupid as this:
Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Thursday that the “entire reason” the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans has “become the political topic it is” is because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about the attack.
I see what Ms. Cutter means, If the Obama campaign believes there is certainly no reason why Americans might consider the murder of their fellow Americans and an Ambassador an issue worth anybody’s attention who am I to say otherwise? After all hundreds of dead Mexicans never made fast and furious an issue worth covering.
Joe Kennedy has the excuse of ignorance and inexperience for his answer, I have no idea what Ms. Cutter’s excuse is.
Perhaps he might consider replacing Ms. Cutter in the Obama campaign once she resigns, after all his version of Witch Doctor would have hurt the Obama Campaign less than her practiced answer.
Update: Stacy McCain remembers the golden age of Panic
@michellemalkin Have you noticed, w Romney gaining in polls, liberals seem to be returning to 2002-05 Golden Age of Unhinged Moonbattery?
Something occurred to me on Sunday that I have not seen mentioned.
It is axiomatic that a video so poorly viewed is not the cause of the events of the Middle East since 9/11 the question becomes. If that is the case, then there has to be another reason.
It is true of course that our Islamic foes don’t need an excuse to attack but one other puzzle is this. The foreign policy of Barack Obama has led to advances for our foes why on earth would they try an event that might affect his re-elections chances & four more years of the same.
The answer unlike “The Innocence of Muslims” may have over 500,000 views.
During the Democrat convention the Arab Left won a notable victory. On Tuesday the Democrat Party adopted a platform that removed Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Now as a person who disagrees with this, I was one of many on the right who pointed this out, we objected and hit the Obama administration over this change, but there is one critique that was present in none of our objections.
Nobody claimed that the decision made was not the legitimate will of the delegates.
For example, I’m an opponent of Gay Marriage, but when it passed in NY it was by a vote of the legislators. I objected strongly but these were the people’s representatives and the people have the right to be wrong.
There are Millions of Americans who do not support Israel, millions of the Muslim Arab Americans in particular. Regardless of how right or wrong we think they are as citizens they have the right to vote and contribute money to candidates and causes who agree with this premise. Even non citizens have a perfect right to make their opinions known and attempt to change minds in every legal way allowed.
Imagine if you are such an Arab American, you live here, you have no ties to terror, you arbor violence but you passionately believe the policy on Israel is wrong. As an American you fight to advance that opinion to the point where you rise to the level of a delegate at the convention of a major political party.
On Tuesday you win the platform vote and you are glowing, all that hard work, all that argument, time and expense has paid off. Yes platforms are the least read documents in history but it is the first step you have hope! Your voice counted! You played by the rules and YOU WON!
You go on-line to facebook and twitter you tell your friend and your cousins about what happens, you tell them “See you guys don’t get it back in the old country. You think America is owned by the Jews & infidels but look here I am, an Arab American who got involved and I won, and not a drop of blood had to be spilled and nobody had to get hurt.”
Then 24 hours later it all changes at the order of the party heads all you worked for is taken away. The platform is reversed and not only is it reversed but it is reversed by a dishonest method where your vote is specifically ignored on national TV. CNN’s camera’s focus on a person wearing an “Arab American Democrat” t-shirt so not only is the humiliation public, but it is specifically directed at Arabs.
And to put the icing on the cake the media insists that the change was by direct order of Barack Obama, the man who had supposedly been the best friend your position ever had.
What do you think the reaction might be at home to this? What might happen the next day when online you are informed “I told you so.” What if the hope for change becomes no hope at all?
Now imagine you are the Muslim Brotherhood, you consider Obama a “useful idiot” and you see all this unfold. You’ve told your followers to tread carefully to protect the useful idiot in the white house. What happens if you decide that the useful idiot is not useful anymore?
What might you do to remind that leader who betrayed you, who made you lose face before your followers that such betrayal comes with a price? Might it be a demonstration of your power, and his weakness?
Again this complete speculation, but given Arab culture, this would not surprise me one bit.
Of course it could be as Glenn Reynolds suggests all the by Obama bragging about scoring four touchdowns in one game killing Bin Laden.
No matter where he stops, the clips shown on television are all about the bringing justice to our enemies it sounds familiar:
Strangely enough if you read foreign papers the press is showing a different narrative the independent:
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.
Egypt’s General Intelligence Service warned that a jihadi group is planning to launch terrorist attacks against the US and Israeli embassies in Cairo, according to a report Tuesday by Egypt Independent, citing a secret letter obtained by Al-Masry Al-Youm.
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
That is not an misprint, it is not a phony site, this was the statement put out.
As I watched last night all I could think of was Jimmy Carter. Ironically the same day that Greg Sargant insisted this was not 1980 our embassies are attacked, but that’s unfair to Carter, his first reaction was not to defend the Iranians who hit our embassy.
"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Note that Mrs. Clinton’s first words were not for the Attacked Americans, the burned embassy, it was for the religious sensibilities of the attackers.
“While the responsibility for our lack of credibility in the greater middle east rests with Obama, let’s not forget that our middle east foreign policy is the product of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and others who share their views. These past four years do not reflect well upon their judgment: something to bear in mind when talk of a Hillary Clinton presidency arises.”
My reaction to the embassy statement frankly is not printable, But Mitt Romney is a much more measured man that is he had this to say:.
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the statement read. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
And the media response to this has been united, loud and decisive, to condemn pillory and attack….Mitt Romney for his inflammatory statements: such as this headline from Salon:
MSNBC has been unrelenting attacking Mitt Romney panel after panel condemning Mitt & Bibi Netanyahu but hasn’t had much to say about the embassy statement, like the killing of the Copts and the burning of their churches as far as MSNBC and our friends on the left are concerned it’s never happened. Or It’s not newsworthy.
As I watched it this Morning I was in complete disbelief.
These people have no idea, no understanding at all. This is their world view, that Israel is the enemy, in their world Islam has to be appeased, that Mitt Romney not those who have attacked our people are the enemy that HAS to be stopped.
The title of this piece is Frenchie , Rooster and Lt. Data & Sherman. That is because when I look at what has happened it reminds me of three movie/TV moments.
In the Movie 1943 Sahara a small contingent of British, French, Australians & Americans find themselves untilled in the Egyptian desert in 1942. Earlier in the movie when a Nazi flyer is shot down the Frenchman offers to take him behind a dune, when the others object he says they don't understand:
“This is a Nazi”.
They ignore him, later in the movie when the small band is in a fight with hundreds of Germans. Under a flag of truce Frenchie is sent to talk to the German commander, as he returns is shot in the back. The British Officer too late gets it saying:
“Frenchie was right, we don’t’ understand the Nazis”
When I look at our reaction to the Muslim Brotherhood this is what I see.
On the TV show Star Trek the Next Generation there is an episode called: "The Most Toys" where an eccentric named Kivas kidnaps Lt. Cmdr Data to add to his collection. He continually threatens the life of a woman who has served him to keep Data in check and when they both try to escape he slaughters her with a weapon that produces violent painful death.
When Data picks up the blaster and orders his surrender his captor notes Data can not kill and threatens says the following:
“You will entertain me and you will entertain my guests if you don’t I’ll kill someone else, him perhaps, it doesn’t matter, his blood will be on your hands just like Varia”
Data the android without feelings finally concludes “I cannot allow this to continue.” And just as he is about to fire he is transported out
When I see the repeated deaths, and attacks by radical Islam, I wonder when we will say what Data does.
The final quote come from the movie True Grit. Here is a short clip of the scene where he after talking to a rat telling it to stop, John Wayne in his Academy award willing roll as Rooster Cogburn acts.
after Mattie puts the rat out Rooster turns to her and says
“You can’t serve papers on a rat baby sister you have to kill him or let it be”
The full clip is here
This is the reality of radical Islam. For years we have been warning about Islamic Terror, for a long time we’ve warned about the Muslim Brotherhood. I’ve maintained that Libya & Egypt both have the right to the government they wish, but with those rights come responsilities. Yet our friends on the left are convinced that we can talk our way out of this, that if only we are nicer and more submissive they will be come our friends. This is not only a delusion it is a delusion that is fatal
"We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South, but we can make war so terrible…that generations pass away before they again appeal to it.".
And I will say out loud what nobody else wants to. We can not change Islamists hearts we can not make the love us unless we abandon free speech and the principles we hold dear. We can not change these people unless we submit and we are fools to try to do so. All we can do is make them fear us, all we can do is make them understand that any such attack, any such action will produce a response so massive so horrible and so unrelenting that generations will pass before they consider striking again.
Remember It wasn’t diplomacy or even the impending invasion of Japan and the potential of millions of deaths fighting us that ended World war two, it was two atomic bombs.
Coptic Christians have their Churches Burned, their women assaulted their people killed.
The world ignores it and the authorities in Egypt don’t prevent it
The Copts response to this violence strongly with ….a youtube video.
An indeterminate time said video comes out on 9/11 the anniversary of the greatest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor Egypt & Libya Islamic mobs attack our embassies, tear down our flag, raise the Al-Qaeda one, kill our ambassador to Libya and other Americans
The first response of the US embassy & the Obama Administration is to try to mollify the religious sensibilities of the attackers of the embassies & the killers of Americans
Mitt Romney puts seeing this puts out the following statement:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the statement read. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
and Morning Joe’s Round table (Sans Joe & Mika) with not conservative at the table, spends their time attacking….Mitt Romney for his statement!
This is the left, this is MSNBC. No defense of the 1st Amendment, No comment on the Obama Administration initial statement and it’s withdrawal the villains here is Mitt Romney. I didn’t hear a person say it was wrong to attack over a film until 9 min after the 8 O’clock hour and they spent the rest of the segment hitting Benjaman Netanyahu as “trying to pick sides in the election”
The villians here are not the Islamists who have slaughtered Christians, not the Egyptian security forces that allowed it, not the embassy attackers, those who killed Americans & tore down the flag on 9/11, not the security forces that permitted it, not even the administration that tried to defend the attackers of their own embassy.
The villains are Mitt Romney and Benjaman Netanyahu and the Jews.
I’d ask which side they were on, but they have made it perfectly clear.
Final thought just under 24 hours ago MSNBC was replaying the 9/11 attacks. This is an absolute disgrace.
Mark Steyn’s brilliant piece on the Arab spring contains a paragraph that is likely oft passed over but deserving to be highlighted.
Whatever one feels about the sharia-enforcing, Jew-hating, genital-mutilating enthusiasts of the Muslim Brotherhood, they do accurately reflect a significant slice — and perhaps a majority — of the Egyptian people. The problem with the old-school dictators was that in the end Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gaddafi didn’t represent anything other than their Swiss bank accounts.
This is the wild card, in Egypt, Libya, Syria and the rest of the Arab world. The axiomatic truth that people should have the right to govern themselves directly classes with the reality that what the people want doesn’t include what we would consider basic human rights.
Let us not forget that the reason why Japan is a country that respect these same rights, is because they were imposed by a victorious United States and allies.
Let us not forget that the slave trade internationally was suppressed by the might of the British Empire not by the altruism of Spain or their former colonies or the Arab world.
Let us not forget that the reason why India is the largest democratic nation in the world is because those democratic traditions came from their colonial masters and those same principles only have any bearing in many spots worldwide because the sun never set on that British Colonial empire.
The days of Kipling and colonialism are over. We are not going to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity, nor should we, but that doesn’t mean we should be silent about the values that we believe in, assuming we actually DO believe in them nor give financial and material support based on those values.
It’s up to the Arab World if they want to live in the modern world or not, but if they choose to live in the middle ages, persecute Christians and treat their women like chattel, they should not expect our support or succor.
And if they choose to make war against Israel or support those who would kill us and do so as the will of their populace they should be prepared to meet the consequences of a free people’s free decisions.
Rights come with responsibilities, lets hope the leaders who rise from the Arab spring selected by the popular will choose to be responsible.
General John Burgoyne: “…You will understand Sir, I hope, since you seem to be a gentleman and a man of some spirit in spite of your calling. If we do have the misfortune to hang you, we shall do so as a mere matter of political necessity and military duty without any personal ill feeling.”
Richard Dudgeon (Disguised as Rev Anthony Anderson): “Well that makes all the difference in the world of course.”
I couldn’t help think of this speech when seeing this video yesterday.
We referenced this video yesterday but decided not to play it on the air. Forgetting the argument of propriety it loses something without the video component. Atlas cheers and Smitty put it well:
Yet somehow the collision of Dylan and Gaza becomes so horrific that you may forget to laugh.
What’s horrific is you’ve replaced a set of dictators who employ various degrees of repression and murder, with a different set of people doing the same thing on a different scale. The murder and repression remain constant.
It would seem to me that the problem isn’t the form of government but of culture. If your culture believes it is right and proper to slaughter and repress people of certain colors and religions it doesn’t matter who rules, you’ll get a culture that produces repression and murder. Replacing a single murderous barbarian bastard with a group of 100 murderous barbarian bastards or 1000 murderous barbarian bastards is not solution, it just means a larger set of murderous barbarian bastards choosing a different set of targets.
The old conventional wisdom from the left and the White House is that the Libyan mission was done primarily by Libyans with help from Nato, that few US troops and treasure was being used and that American was not really involved in the war.
Now that Gaddafi is dead the Libyan mission is suddenly a wholly owned production of Barack Obama inc and if you don’t believe or proclaim that you are just a Republican who has non shame.
I gave the following advice to the GOP when this news came out yesterday and it’s still correct today:
And believe me they will.
I think you have to give the administration credit here, there are things they could have done better than might have won the war in the first week with less casualties, but in the end the attrition method worked pretty well.
This morning we talked about the left’s blind spot for dictator’s In Jay Nordlinger Impromptus yesterday he points out that the dictators and their families know who they are and who they love:
Mutassim (Qaddafi Gaddafi whatever) had a Dutch girlfriend, a nudie model. Here is a snippet from a Telegraph article: “The hedonist son also had ambitions for power, inspired by his father’s example. ‘He worshipped his father,’ Miss Van Zon said. ‘He talked a lot about Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. He liked leaders who had a lot of power.’”
By the way, what must a certain class of liberal think, when they see their heroes Castro and Chávez grouped with Hitler?
Every generation we seem to have these groups or organization that cry freedom but tend to oppose only US interests.
We saw it in the anti-war groups that opposed the US but love Chavez and Cuba
We saw it in the human shields who were ready to protect Saddam from US attack but not willing to protect Iraqi civilians once Islamists were bombing them.
We saw it in the European protestors in the 80’s opposing US missile deployment.
We saw it in the protestors against US involvement in Vietnam
and we saw it in the defense of Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs
Over and over we have seen this type of thing. As time passes people are shocked when history shows the Rosenburgs guilty, Hiss actually being a spy, the Iron Curtain supporting and funding protestors in Europe etc etc etc.
Now Wikileaks which somehow manages to get their hands on US secrets (but strangely enough never finds, Russian, Iranian, Chinese , Cuban, etc etc etc cables to reveal) has “accidentally” leaked the lot and people actually think it’s a surprise or an accident?
It takes a certain type of person to believe this, perhaps the same time of person who bought this bill of goods:
It has been lost in the American press, but until he issued his televised “rivers of blood” speech from Tripoli in February, Saif was the darling of Europe’s political establishment. He socialized with members of the House of Lords, Tony Blair’s cabinet, Prince Andrew, and well-heeled environmental activists. Saif had seduced Europe’s intelligentsia and the Continent’s left-leaning cognoscenti.
“The political class in this country have courted him,” said Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski, chairman of a British parliamentary group on Libya, in an interview with the UK’s Guardian.
The bottom line is the left always manages to find any person or cause against the US worthy of admiration from dictator’s wives to leakers of US documents.
This is of course a good thing for several reasons:
1. Gaddafi was an enemy of the United States with the blood of many American’s on his hands.
2. All Peoples deserve the chance for self-determination
3. The president put us all in by saying “Gaddafi must go” so every day he stayed was a day of defeat for the US.
4. The end of the war in Libya is almost certain to have a downward effect on oil prices which means less pain at the pump and a decrease in food inflation.
I must admit I expected partition, the rebels didn’t seem a coherent force and I presumed Gaddafi had sufficient funds for more than 6 months. This is a much better result than a partition and given the choice of the pair we should welcome it.
This is of course doesn’t mean that Libya will be a bed of roses also for several reasons.
1. The Al-Qaeda connection between the Libyan rebels means that we have to thread carefully, we may in fact end up with a government more unfriendly than before and any advanced weaponry captured by the rebels might end up in the wrong hands big time. That is a disaster just waiting to happen and we’d better take steps to be sure it doesn’t.
2. The rebels are not well-organized and the government could go either way.
3. Because of aggressive moves by Sudan and the aid of Niger to Gaddafi we may see a second wider war in the area.
4. There is every possibility that self-determination might become Sharia or a new war with Israel.
Or to put it another way we have no idea exactly how this is going to end up in the long-term.
Now there are several winners here:
1. Libyan rebels: Although aided by NATO air strikes they fought this war pretty much on their own. That is healthy for a new country but NATO gave them just enough help that there is a debt.
2. NATO: The fall of Gaddafi without primary involvement of the US is significant. It gives a morale boost to the alliance while also providing experience to pilots in actual combat situations. This puts them in an excellent position to help steer things in a more positive than negative direction.
3. Obama: He made several missteps and it can credibly be said that we either came late to the game (an early move would have been a win in March) or didn’t belong in the game at all, but the bottom line is that he intervened at the moment that prevented a mass slaughter in Benghazi and (to our knowledge) kept US troops on the whole out of the fight while still achieving his objectives.
4. The US: An enemy is removed and the prestige of the US is maintained without massive intervention by our troops. That’s a win.
Some might consider it wrong to celebrate this or to give Obama any credit. I have to disagree. It doesn’t matter if we belonged there or not or if it was done poorly, the bottom line is this was an US backed war and it ended in a victory for the side we supported and I’ll take it.
Elections or no, politics or no, given the choice of an US defeat than can be blamed on Obama or an US victory that he can take credit for, I’ll take the victory every time.
Update: Steve Benen starts to overplay his hand:
Remember hearing about the “blame America first” crowd? Well, say hello to the “thank America last” crowd.
McCain and Graham “commend” everyone except the United States military, and then, even while applauding the developments, take yet another shot at the Obama administration.
Hold on, I thought a major argument by the Administration was that US forces were NOT involved beyond the initial taking out of the airpower and it was NOT a US mission.
the fact of the matter is, the efforts of U.S. forces in are being cited as “a major factor in helping to tilt the balance after months of steady erosion of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s military.”
So apparently taking primary credit when we don’t have boots on the ground or took part in the majority of the fighting is no longer “jingoistic”.
I would also remind our friends on the left that the only reason why Libya garnered some US diplomatic niceties was they abandoned their WMD’s when Gaddafi was terrified of the US after Iraq, and if not for that war which they so opposed, not only would this it have been unlikely that this revolt have even started but if it DID start the Gaddafi government would have certainly used WMD to quash it.
Let’s be blunt, giving the Obama administration its due as I do in this post is not only the right thing but the smart thing. It’s the right thing because they deserve it and its the smart thing for three reasons.
1. It does remove the “petty” charge that is made
2. It is almost certain that the left (which somehow has forgotten the Libyan apologists among them) will oversell the victory
3. By giving Obama the credit and letting him take it, he implicitly becomes responsible for the long term developments in Libya just as the Bush gets credit/blame for long term developments in Iraq.
He can proclaim vindication all he wants, but I doubt it will do him much good politically here at home. And seeing that the US led from behind in this kinetic military action it probably won’t help our standing much in the Arab world. In case you haven’t heard, Arabs now hate the US more than they did when Bush was president. Go figure.
I actually disagree with the last sentence a bit, the Arabs likely hate us just as much as they did before but because they don’t fear Obama as they did Bush they are more likely to express it publicly and act upon that hatred.
Looking at MSNBC this morning on the debt ceiling I can see that where this is and where it is going.
I slept in a bit this morning but caught the end of Morning Joe and the beginning of Chuck Todd’s show, they are opining on the dysfunction of the house of representatives because Boehner bill did not pass.
The House has passed bill after bill, they passed a budget when the neither the Democratic House of the Senate under Harry Reid, they have sent these bills to the Senate but they have been a model of inaction. They passed Cut Cap and Balance which still sits on the table in the Senate today.
For the MSM it has been a heads you lose, tails you lose. If the GOP passes Boehner bill (and I thought it should pass) then the Senate would ignore it, and the story would be all about how the house can’t pass a bill that the senate could accept and intransigent GOP members.
If the GOP doesn’t pass the Boehner bill then it’s all about a dysfunctional house not passing anything in a crisis. (Somehow the 180+ democrats who wouldn’t vote for it hold no responsibility for this.)
Now lets look at the senate side. Reid has passed NOTHING, zip zero nada. There have been a lot of talk about this plan and that plan but there has been no bill, nothing brought to the floor, nothing with actual figures that people can vote on.
“Death, destruction, disease, horror. That’s what war is all about, Anan. That’s what makes it a thing to be avoided.” Capt James T. Kirk via a Taste or Armageddon
Throughout parts of Libya under rebel control, people are frustrated with NATO. Between its slow pace of attacks and the errant strikes that have killed rebel fighters, the speculation now is that the Western coalition lacks the resources and resolve to help the rebels topple Gaddafi. NATO and Libya’s Rebels Don’t JibeYahoo News June 21st
One of the biggest changes in American Political life since the mid 20th century has been the demise of the liberal Hawk. The people who believed that War though horrible when fought is for a purpose is sometimes necessary and should be fought to win.
For a long time Democrats, particularly in the south were strong proponents of national defense. The attitude was best illustrated by an exchange between Senator William Russell of Georgia and Senator Milton Young of North Dakota:
Sen Young: “You people of the South are much more militarily minded than in the North.”
Sen Russell: “You’d be more military minded too, if Sherman had crossed North Dakota.” The Years of Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate pp 182
Slowly democrats changed or as they might say progressed. It was sometime between the last few years of the Vietnam war and the beginning of the Reagan Era that the political landscape altered. Democrats who had learned the lessons of World War 2 died out and were replaced by those whose school were marches and protests. It is from that template that a democratic party that once supported the cold war, found themselves advancing the Soviet positions ,calling for weapons freezes, defending the Sandinistas etc. It from them that the modern anti-war democrats descend intellectually.
It created a philosophy that was as comfortable and without risk as a mansion in a gated community. A strong and happy place where those who would never serve and didn’t know friends or family who did could be assured of their own self-righteousness. It was a place where the warlike west was the cause of most of the problems of the world, where utopia could be reached if only we listed to the words of John Lennon. It was a place where the US soldier was a strange creature who joined the Army simply to get an education due to poverty or because of poor upbringing. It was a place of bumper stickers about bake sales vs bombs, where the enlightened could gather convinced that the age of the warrior was soon to pass.
It was in this place that a community organizer was weaned and taught to look at the world and see the beauty of an America that was merely one cog in the great circle of nations.
Then came September 11th and realities of the world slapped the face of a slumbering US. For the left it was disaster to all they built up. It was bad enough the attackers were all of a particular religion but there were images of some of their allies celebrating the attack. Many who followed the left abandoned them and even worse the American soldier was transformed from a victim trapped by events to a hero, the symbol of power and strength, commanded by a leader who didn’t see shades of grey, who saw good and evil and was not afraid to define them.
The Democratic left in congress was faced with a quandary; those who actually saw intelligence knew what the threat was but their supporters weaned on a different brand of history could not and did not acknowledge the threat. So Democrats in congress took a page of the European playbook from the 80’s. They publicly denounced the President and seemingly fought his policies while making sure he had just enough votes to advance them. This gave them the best of all possible worlds, preventing a disaster while keeping the support of their base until the mood of the nation could change.
Such resolve is hard to maintain and as the decade neared it end the nation was facing economic troubles and when given the choice between an old warrior and a young leader who promised hope and change, they choose the young leader.
The president inherited two wars, one winding down in Iraq and the 2nd in Afghanistan in need of attention. They would both be challenges but no matter what decisions were to be made, he could fairly say neither war was his own and although he would be responsible for fighting them, he could not be held responsible for starting them. When the prospect of a new conflict might arise, the world could see the difference between the old simplistic way of fighting and the new era of smart diplomacy.
Which brings us to Libya.
With the Arab spring dawned in Egypt the Obama administration supported the Egyptian people against our onetime ally Mubarak. The US trained Egyptian army showed restraint (perhaps warned by their US advisers) and the government fell.
When the movement spread to Libya the situation was different. Like Egypt Libya was ruled by a dictator supported by a military, but unlike Egypt the US influence was minimal and the dictator had no compunction about killing thousands to retain power.
At first events seems to favor the rebels. The closed on the Capital of Tripoli. The world sat back seeing the success. Western Reporters descended on the Capital determined to report the end of Gaddafi as the end of his rule seemed imminent.
Meanwhile a former governor of Alaska suggested a NATO no-fly zone to preserve Rebel gains around Tripoli and hasten the fall of a man responsible for the death of Many Americans.
But the president of the United states would not be pressed into a war when none was necessary. He was sure it was the interference of the west that caused the worlds problems and despite the strength of the still Loyal air force Gaddafi was sure to fall any day. He declined to involve the US militarily but stated emphatically that “Gaddafi must go”.
Alas nobody told Gaddafi. With the time allowed him to recruit mercenaries from the south he counterattacked. With no air cover and no heavy weapons the rebels were routed. They poured back the length of the country and found themselves besieged with Gaddafi warning of slaughter if they didn’t surrender.
This was the moment of crisis. There was no strategic objective for the United States but the president had declared “Gaddafi must go” and if nothing was done then Gaddafi would take Benghazi and slaughter and the rebellion would be over with the Gaddafi regime firmly in power.
We could instead support the rebels. With American Air-power and military might Gaddafi would not be able to stand. True the rebels were not friends (in fact there was evidence that many were enemies) but there was no question that Gaddafi was a foe and his fall supported by the US forces would be a message to any enemy that the US had a long memory.
But such a strategy would involve the direct use of US power by the Obama administration on their own behalf. All that he was, all that he was taught, all he came from told him that such US power to overthrow an enemy was an abomination, but could he stand by and let the rebels die? Would not that blood be on his hands?
And here was the mistake, the mistake that Johnson made in Vietnam, the mistake that the left has always made in war. The belief that you can fight a war without fighting to win.
The president choose to go the route of NATO and the UN. A resolution was voted on and passed and within a week US planes where destroying Gaddafi’s ability to strike from the air and the Rebels on the verge of defeat once again pushed forward.
But the west was not willing to commit to a fight to the finish. Gaddafi’s forces adapted and over the last several months the war has seesawed with the Gaddafi alternatively pushing forward and being thrown back.
The President had two choices, both bad, both involving risks and neither attractive for America. A strong cold war leader would have made a choice and lived with the consequences but instead president Obama tried to compromise, to vote “present” if you will and now rather than a single friend or a single enemy we now have a stalemate and two sides who don’t trust us.
At the beginning of this mess I saw three possible conclusions. Where we are is where I expected us to be. If we had either stayed out, or fought the war to win, it would have been over in March or April. Instead there is no end in sight.
If the democratic party was the party of the past they might have taken James T. Kirk’s advice:
unfortunately for the world, that Democratic party is gone forever.
Make no mistake, however. The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chance that the mission will not succeed. It bears repeating that the deadline imposed by the president has nothing to do with military or strategic calculation. It has everything to do with an electoral calculation. President Obama wants those troops out two months before Americans go to the voting booth.
,,,gives me a pain in my gut. The thought that a decades worth of fighting is managed based on which way Pennsylvania and Ohio might go in 2012 is obscene.
I may be a naive fellow, but I assumed that we are in Afghanistan to achieve objectives: Off the top of my head I’m thinking a few of those might be:
1. Kill any Al Qaeda/militants who might threaten or be capable of global jihad
2. Neutralize the Pakistan madrassas that are sending further terrorists in training
3. Keep the Taliban that sheltered and aided Al-Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold in Afghanistan
4. Establish relationships with local leaders within the country as intelligence sources for future reference
5. Keep pressure on Iran by having functioning bases and an army on their eastern flank
6. Keep pressure on Pakistan whose support for our operations against terror is based solely on their fear of us
These are worthy and worthwhile goals, however this report suggests the president’s objectives in Afghanistan might be described as more condensed:
1. Keep Afghanistan from being a political liability in 2012
When it seemed that a defeat in Afghanistan might be laid at his feet, he supported a surge in order to keep the pressure on and show himself to be a strong leader.
I applauded this move. For me this is a political rather than a religious issue so his motives were as irrelevant as Lyndon Johnson’s for advancing the civil rights act of 1957 I wanted the right thing done and he was helped by first-rate troops and officers who have done their job well.
Now with his election prospect faltering and the media unable to pretend otherwise, he is desperate to secure his base already angered by flips and flops of various natures.
So he is trying to divide the baby with a series of pull-outs before the election with a promise of full pullout after the election (Very Nixonian btw).
The left and the Morning Joe crowd who have been crying: “Afghanistan is Vietnam” have it entirely wrong. Afghanistan is not becoming Vietnam, the proper parallel is Libya
Libya is a war we entered for political reasons. Our combat strategy appears to be totally dependent on the political calculations of the White House at any given time.
It appears that we have moved to the Libya model in Afghanistan. If this is correct than God help us and God help our troops.
Democrats care more about Obama’s presidency than they do about the rule of law: Democrats should be the most vocal opposition to a President who is prosecuting a war in violation a law that they wrote and passed not even 40-years ago. But it is a Democrat President breaking that law, not a Republican. Outside of true-believers like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, expect Democrats to remain silent.
Syrian security forces opened fire on a demonstration Friday in the coastal city of Latakia – the heartland of the ruling elite – wounding at least five people as thousands took to the streets in several places across the country, witnesses said.
President Bashar Assad’s regime has stepped up its deadly crackdown on protesters in recent days by unleashing the army along with snipers and tanks. On Friday, protesters came out in their thousands, defying the crackdown and using it as a rallying cry.
There is also a rather hopeful development:
about 200 mostly low-level members of Syria’s ruling Baath Party have resigned over Assad’s brutal crackdown.
That would have been unheard of not long ago. Meanwhile in Libya things continue to develop, badly:
Libyan troops chased rebel fighters across the border with Tunisia and clashed with them, indiscriminately firing in the area before being captured by the Tunisian military, witnesses said. Tunisia’s government expressed “extreme indignation” and demanded Libya immediately halt violations of its territory.
In reality the West would LOVE if Tunisia or Egypt got involved. Much better to have Arab boots on the ground instead of western ones.
Syria’s state-run television says “armed terrorists” have attacked a military post in the southern city of Daraa, killing four soldiers and capturing two.
The report comes as thousands of Syrians took to the streets across the country – including the capital of Damascus – in demonstrations against the regime of President Bashar Assad. The six-week uprising has posed the gravest threat to his rule.
The government has blamed the unrest on armed gangs – not true reform-seekers.
Daraa is where the revolt began. It has been under military siege since Monday.
Yet another message that will likely be ignored by the increasingly irrelevant MSM:
At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.
She also schools him on what a leader does:
Mr. President, your hesitation and vacillation in the Middle East breed uncertainty. It’s symptomatic of the puzzling way you govern. See, uncertainty is one of the factors over which you have control, and I would think you’d want to eliminate that additional element that helps breed problems like higher oil prices. Higher oil means exorbitant gas prices weighing down our economy. Consistency and strength – and greater domestic energy production – will help fix higher gas prices and help heal the economy. But only with leadership. These sorts of problems don’t fix themselves.
It’s unbelievable to me that you spent last week in campaign mode, gallivanting around the country to start raising the billion dollars for your reelection bid that is still 19 months away “while Rome burns.”
I’ll say it again. If Palin was president in Feb we would now be debating what to do about a post Gaddafi Libya instead of wondering what do to next, and consider. If a president Palin took decisive action on Libya in Feb would we be reading about folks shot in the streets of Syriatoday?
Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people.
…this was when the Rebels were still closing on Tripoli. In March I make the following prediction:
The person here to watch is Sarah Palin. If she makes pronouncements concerning the rights and the protection of the Libyan people and they catch on, watch the White House react so the president doesn’t appear to be less of a leader than the former governor who is supposed to be not a serious political threat.
For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.
So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That’s all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.
Sounds pretty topical, When did Palin say this? AUGUST OF 2009 when gas was still in the low $2 per gallon. Bloggers covered it. The MSM didn’t. Where would gas prices and the economy be today if the MSM reported this and the president listened to her 2 years ago?
Palin however along with Rush Limbaugh choose to stand and fight, and through 2009 fought nearly alone. Without that willingness throughout 2009 there is no huge republican majority in the House this year. She held the line while you (Joe Scarborough) counseled retreat, that’s what a leader does
As I said to a friend and colleague tonight, wherever the current battle is, that’s very often where you can find Palin. One of the first requirements for leadership is to show up out front. No one will ever accuse Palin of not doing that. Doing so also has an interesting side benefit for any would be leader. When you lead, people tend to follow and support you, even if not at first.
Sarah Palin rides to the sound of the guns. It was a chilly, wet and blustery afternoon in Madison, Wisconsin — one more appropriate for a late-season Packers game than a springtime political rally. The stirring NFL Films theme, “The Classic Battle,” would’ve been a more apt musical choice than Van Halen’s “Right Now” to accompany Palin as she entered the stage outside the state capital building to address thousands of Tea Party members, along with a good number of extremely hostile, expletive-hurling government union rowdies.
So MSM, keep obsessing over the shiny new Trump toy if you must. But better keep an eye on a certain sharpshooting, grizzly mama. She’s back.
James writes for Reuters so 10 out of 10 for noticing but that last line is wrong, she isn’t back, she was never gone, you just didn’t deign to notice her.
Places like Iraq, Syria, or Saudi Arabia spend a lot of time telling their citizens that everyone feels a particular way, and punishing those who dare to differ, which has the effect of encouraging people to falsify their preferences. But who knows? Given the right trigger, those brittle authoritarian regimes might collapse overnight
How often does the MSM dismiss those who disagree with their template? There is a reason why Rush Limbaugh refers to the MSM as the State run media
the Sun again:
It will be something to watch for in his first big press conference Wednesday. No doubt it will be one of the most crowded press conferences in recent memory, and there will be lots to ask about. But one of the questions will be how in tarnation Mrs. Palin figured it out so far ahead of everyone else.
Let’s bottom line it: Sarah Palin is a leader, the current occupant of the White House is not. Trump talk and current Polls not withstanding I’m going to make the following prediction conventional wisdom not withstanding:
Sarah Palin is going to run for president in 2012. And she is going to win!
Update:Hotair sees The Sun but not the light beyond it…yet
In Shelby Foote Magnum Opus The Civil War he tells the following story of Confederate General Braxton Bragg that is repeated online here:
“Grant recalled a story about Bragg when he was both company commander and quartermaster. “As commander of the company he made a requisition upon the quartermaster-himself-for something he wanted. As quartermaster he declined to fill the requisition, and endorsed on the back of it his reasons for so doing. As company commander he responded to this, urging that his requisition called for nothing but what he was entitled to, and that it was the duty of the quartermaster to fill it. As quartermaster he still persisted that he was right. Bragg finally went to the post commander for resolution of the problem who declared “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself.””
I could not help but think of that when I saw this story, after many days of delays and false starts NATO (a military organization that the US is the primary member and chief sponsor) finally took over the Libya mission from the US. Today was Day 1 of the NATO led mission. So what is the first thing “they” do?
NATO has asked the United States to continue participating in airstrikes over Libya through late Monday, ABC News has learned.
This was done to make up for the bad weather earlier in the week that had hampered targeting of Gadhafi forces and allowed them to push the rebels back to Ajdabiyah.
I suspect that NATO will have an easier time talking to themselves than Bragg did.
That anyone is taking this farce seriously is an indictment on the gullibility of mankind.
The major actors in Libya around the globe have the message: Gaddafi’s days are numbered. Generally speaking, the only people to whom the obvious is not clear are the same men who involved us in an eight-year war, like Rumsfeld.
For the last several days you have been hearing the media talk about how there is trouble in Republican Land. Harry Reid is saying how the speaker has to abandon the Tea Party (My latest in the Examiner on the subject is To Tea or not to Tea btw) Schumer is going on about “extremism” and CNN is going on and on about how unpopular or ineffective the Tea Party is.
Yet for all of the noise you are hearing what do we see?
Locally a good turnout at the tea party meetings to see Sheriff Lew Evangelidis talk about his first 100 days, Les Gosule on Melissa’s bill and a plethora of Tea Party activities in the works.
For a dying movement clearly in Central Mass things are still happening.
Biden confirmed the new target on spending cuts, putting the best face on the deal for Democrats and in his trademark style, trying to add a little punch to the administration’s stance— still hampered by Obama’s detachment from the budget fight.
But I thought all of these cuts were “draconian” and “extreme“? If this is the public number where will the final one be? Yet it is democrats trying to put the “best face on it”.
Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.
If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”
Hey, I thought the Unions were winning and the Governor was unpopular? If you are winning why play the “Nice business you’ve got there, shame if anything would happen to it.” card.
And the Democrats who are so sure publicly that the budget confrontation will roll back those 63 seats the republicans gained are suddenly not so sure:
NOW, THE DCCC HAS BEEN FORCED TO FOCUS ON ONLY 14 DISTRICTS: “The Democratic Party is taking aim at 14 freshmen Republicans in the House, of 87 elected, whom it deems the most vulnerable…We’re way too early in the cycle to start trying to predict what the results will be on Nov. 6, 2012. “But it’s pretty remarkable that we’re not hearing much talk about Democrats retaking the House in 2012,” Geraghty says.
14 seats they think the republicans and Tea Party folk are so unpopular they can pick up a whole 14 seats?
But why worry, after all President Obama is still polling well…isn’t he?
President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Yeah but he’s The one™. We in the MSM know republicans are in trouble and not democrats, because if Democrats were in trouble they’d have to receive open government awards in secret or something.
President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.
How can this be? After all it’s not like he’s like Johnson or Nixon secretly putting the CNN into foreign countries to overthrow people or something?
And I’d be willing to bet that these CIA operatives aren’t the only American boots pennyloafers gators shoes of indeterminate structure on the ground in Libya. We’ve previously reported on the insertion of A-10′s and B-1′s into the conflict. Typically, such aircraft require some tactical assistance on the ground. That’s usually Air Force enlisted personnel; it’s a segment of the AF special operations called combat control.
I haven’t linked to Andrew Sullivan in ages, but his reaction is simply so funny that it deserves a link:
It’s so surreal, so discordant with what the president has told the American people, so fantastically contrary to everything he campaigned on, that I will simply wait for more confirmation than this before commenting further. I simply cannot believe it. I know the president is not against all wars – just dumb ones. But could any war be dumber than this – in a place with no potential for civil society, wrecked by totalitarianism, riven by tribalism, in defense of rebels we do not know and who are clearly insufficient to the task?
Andrew as a certain Time Lord once said: “you can’t be a successful crook with a dishonest face, can you?”
So to those in the GOP who are worried about fighting back because the media says we’re in trouble I say this:
“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!.
Update: Here is the solution for democrats. Tax increases! That’s going to fly really well.
Watching Morning Joe today. They started with Libya and talk was all about arming the rebels and why Libya and not elsewhere. Listening to the discussion I noticed that there was something missing.
I had my doubts whenever Joe Scarborough’s op-ed, would get the play it normally does. Considering that the opening segment is repeated at 8 a.m. you would think that they would make it a point to bring up the hosts op-ed on the subject of the day first. Instead during Mika’s must read op-eds it was mentioned late as they instead talks of the anniversary of the Reagan Assassination attempt, leaving just enough time to give Joe’s piece two minutes
Sarkozy clearly hopes the Libyan adventure will make him popular, too. Nobody finds this surprising. At a conference in Brussels over the weekend, I watched a French participant boast of France’s leading role in the Libyan air campaign. A minute later, he heartily agreed that the war was a ploy to help Sarkozy get re-elected. The two emotions—pride in French leadership and cynicism about Sarkozy’s real motives—were not, it seems, mutually exclusive.
And of course the goal is to have this underwritten by the US while he gets the supposed electoral benefits.
Do not expect the MSM to give Anne’s take any play at all.
The US media has been playing down the connections between Al Qaeda and the Libyan Rebels for a while now, but today Byron York tackles it:
Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the “foreign invasion” — that is, the U.S. military. According to a report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, al-Hasidi says he was later captured in Pakistan, handed over to the U.S., then held in prison in Libya before being released in 2008.
In addition to fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, al-Hasidi also says he recruited about two dozen men to fight the U.S. in Iraq.
What is more amazing than those two sentences is the response of the NYT to this:
“No one seems all that frightened by him,” the New York Times wrote of al-Hasidi after a visit to Darnah in early March. Al-Hasidi, the paper reported, “praises Osama bin Laden’s ‘good points’ but denounces the 9/11 attacks on the United States.” And besides, the Times reported, al-Hasidi finds it amusing that the government of Moammar Gadhafi considers him an al Qaeda terrorist. “He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching,” the Times reported.
Whenever Afghanistan comes up on Morning Joe he repeats the mantra that there are only a few Al Qaeda present there. Apparently there are a lot more Al Qaeda in Libya and we are saving them from Gaddafi.
Now given that we are there now, and fighting we should fight to win, but it’s one thing to fight and win in Libya with Al-Qaeda at our side, it’s another thing to arm this guys:
But Sky News now understands the US is looking at a legal framework to allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels, if they can prove they need them to defend themselves from attack.
Mark Kornblau, spokesman for US Ambassador Dr Susan Rice, confirmed it was a possibility.
You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.
The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.
Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?
Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.
And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.
I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.
Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”
Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.
If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?
And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.
For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.
Powers had not sneaked into the event. He was chosen as the pool reporter for local media and was expecting to speak with guests in addition to hearing speeches by Biden and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida). Instead, when he got there he was told the politicians had not yet arrived and hustled into a closet that seems to be more nicely appointed than my apartment.
How ignored? Only Jake Tapper has bothered to write about it and that was days after the fact:
“Scott – You have our sincere apologies for the lack of a better hold room today,” wrote Vice President Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander last Wednesday to Orlando Sentinel reporter Scott Powers.
“Lack of a better hold room” is an interesting way of putting it. In order to keep Powers from mingling with guests at a Democratic fundraiser last Wednesday, Powers was escorted into a storage closet by a Biden staffer.
Yup a reporter kept in a storage closet isn’t big enough news for Morning Joe of Mika this morning, after all they know that the administration actually loves them and wants the best for them and as you can see by the apology they really mean it this time.
Meanwhile the media still ignores the Al Qaeda links to the people we are fighting a war engaging in a kinetic military action for.
Al-Qaeda’s offshoot in North Africa has snatched surface-to-air missiles from an arsenal in Libya during the civil strife there, Chad’s president said in an interview to be published Monday.
Idriss Deby Itno did not say how many were stolen, but told the African weekly Jeune Afrique that he was “100 per cent sure” of his assertion.
“The Islamists of Al Qaeda took advantage of the pillaging of arsenals in the rebel zone to acquire arms, including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries in Tenere,” a desert region of the Sahara that stretches from northeast Niger to western Chad, Deby said in the interview.
the Australian and Arab press have been reporting this, our press, not so much. I’m sure that Al Qaeda has only the most peaceful intentions for these surface to air missiles. I feel safer in an airliner already!
I wonder if the NYT will after the fact suddenly discover that these folks aren’t nice guys as they did in Egypt?
Multiple sources reluctant to come forward publically, or speak on the record, paint an extremely troubling picture that only raises even more serious questions, if true. Why did Snider abruptly resign? If there was an altercation, why was no one charged? Why did the local police turn the case over to the State Police? Are they really the best qualified to investigate one of their own given such a potentially significant story impacting race relations, especially for Democrats, in Illinois? Will justice be served, or only the interests of Democrats, who control all levers of government in Illinois?
Some have alleged that Snider entered the Anchor Inn in Carlinville, leaving after making a curious comment about the tavern appearing “dark.” Allegedly, there were a number of black patrons present, including students from Blackburn College. It’s also claimed that Snider returned later and proceeded to remark loudly as to the large number of “n#&&ers” present. It’s said some tried to quiet Snider, or get him to leave; but he resisted.
At some point, an altercation between Snider and a black Blackburn student is said to have taken place due to Snider’s outburts. It’s also been claimed that a number of Blackburn students, including one involved in the alleged altercation, then fled with Snider pursuing them on foot, allegedly “threatening to get his gun and kill them” at some point.
And, don’t forget that for years this “reformer” Assad allowed terrorists on his soil who had been moving, arming, and funding foreign jihadists traveling through Syria into Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
The actual difference is that one is an Iranian satellite who’s opposed us in Iraq and the other gave in to us when it came to WMD after Iraq fell.
Though no one is yet talking about a no-fly zone over Syria, Obama administration officials acknowledge the parallels to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Some analysts predicted the administration will be cautious in pressing Mr. Assad, not because of any allegiance to him but out of a fear of what could follow him — a Sunni-led government potentially more radical and Islamist than his Alawite minority government.
Frankly we aren’t in a position to intervene in Syria even if we want to, but why not simply be ambiguous? Just say: “All options are on the table.” Make Syria and Iran sweat? Make Assard think he has to give concessions?
This is what comes of judging based on what others want than our own national interest. 2012 can’t come fast enough.
At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.
But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?
The answer: It depends on how you look at it.
If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.
If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.
If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.
All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results
#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.
#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?
#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.
And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.
This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.
One of the strangest bits of what is going on in Libya is watching people describe what is going on.
At my weekly game night I went around the table with the guys and asked the opinion of the people there. About 60% didn’t care for it thinking it was not our business, another 40% not only approved but they had an interesting take, they insisted what we were doing wasn’t a war.
“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific… to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”
Nope it’s nothing at all like a war, I would think the Libyans might disagree.
Exit question: As things are getting interesting in Syria what are the odds of seeing the UN or anyone else support “protecting the civilian population” there.
Police fired live ammunition and tear gas Sunday at thousands of Syrians protesting in a tense southern city for a third consecutive day, killing one person and signaling that unrest in yet another Arab country is taking root, activists said.
About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will take part in support operations based aboard USS Kearsarge at sea. Those support operations have thus far included air strikes and one rescue operation. The overall mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.
“In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that’s protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces,” said Captain Timothy Patrick, a Marine with the 26th MEU.
I don’t pretend to be a military expect but what non-combat role will 2200 marines be doing aboard the Kearsarge at sea that couldn’t be done by the sailors on the ship. It’s not like the Kearsarge is going to be boarding the CSS Alabama anytime soon.
One suspects that US ground forces will have to become engaged if anything solid is to happen in NATO’s engagement in Libya. And it seems like Obama is warming us up for that yet.
and as Dan Riehl points out, the Kearsarge is an amphibious assault ship, if they aren’t going to be boots on the ground in Libya, just what are they going to be assaulting? According to Gates they are for “options and contingencies,”.
Apparently president Obama’s definition of “boots on the ground” is similar to a few of my friends who insist that this is “not a war”.
It will be very interesting to see what happens once this gets into the MSM.
Watching Morning Joe twist in circles continues to be an awful lot of fun.
I know somedisagree but why should we let the left off the hook for this kind of thing. All it does is enable them the next time they come after conservatives. Additionally the insistence of “limited war” against Gaddafi is nonsense.
He also referred to the French and Europe as the “JV” team.
There is a conflict here in one sense, If this was going to be done it needed to be done faster and a vote could have been asked of congress. I believe when the president spoke the words “Gaddafi must go” he did so without considering what that meant for the US. There is also the possibility that this was done as a sop to Egypt who fought a war with Gaddafi in the past.
In the meanwhile I intend to continue to tweak the left, in the end I hope this will all work out. As for the president regardless if the move was right or wrong or late we are committed and we have to stand behind the fight. In the words of a particular Giant: “I hope we win.”
At least according to Dan Riehl at Riehl world view who recalls an old Sullivan Post per election concerning Barack Obama:
On October 27, 2008, Andrew Sullivan posted: The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama. Given all this playing out today, I thought I’d go back and have a look.
It’s high comedy but let me explain something. It’s my opinion Sullivan’s turn on Bush had everything to do with Bush’s position on Gay Marriage, it was after that point where Sullivan really started changing his tune and it was the (likely correct) belief that Obama was paying lip service to actual marriage during the campaign that made the difference in the other direction.
But as Glenn Reynolds points out the rubes are self identifying, but never fear. As soon a there is an actual Republican challenger to Obama all of our friends on the left who are beating their breasts today will support him, Mendoza line or no.
Update: Stacy Links and comments seem to agree with my Sullivan assessment, Oh and BTW the Mendoza line is a baseball term referring to hitting .200.