Midway through Saturday night's performance: Who's registered to vote? I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote for Obama.
Drawing boos, Madonna followed: Seriously, I don't care who you vote for ... Do not take this privilege for granted. Go vote. I can agree with that. I maintain voting is an obligation if we are to keep our republic.
A derogatory term for a (usually younger) female, implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness. May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. Can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash.
What is a skank ?
If she believes in communism so strongly she has a lot of ill-gotten gaines and property-that-is-theft and there's a lot of welders who spent a couple years out-of-work at the direction of her fucking boyfriend.
I disagree. Go vote if and only if you have made the effort of keeping yourself reasonably informed (say, by reading Rantburg) so you can cast an enlightened vote. But if you are like these Obama voters in 2008 who had spent 4 years watching sport and sitcoms and believed that the Republicans controlled Congress then you would do a favor to democracy by not going to vote: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and you have been asleep.
Good point JFM - Voting may be a right (for citizens) but along with that is a responsibility (apologies to those liberal readers for using a foul word) to be properly informed so you can make a reasonable judgement.
Far too many fail that responsibility. Too busy watching American Idol, Sitcoms, and (sadly) the mainstream media.
In the final presidential debate on October 22, President Barack Obama spoke briefly about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. officials and personnel in Benghazi. He outlined why the U.S. had gone into Libya before the attack. He outlined the answers he is still seeking following the attack. But he did not say why this terrorist attack had occurred or why the U.S. had been ill-prepared to meet it in what is, after all, a volatile city alive with militias recently freed from dictatorial rule. Nor did he tell us why his Administration strenuously avoided calling it a terrorist attack for two weeks, preferring instead to speak of a spontaneous assault in the course of a demonstration of Muslims offended by an anti-Muhammad video.
The implication of this apologetic gloss of the first two weeks is obvious: The Administration was saying that Ambassador Chris Stevens was not murdered by Islamists who hate America and its allies and mean to attack us again; he was the victim of the local reaction to one of the products of American freedom of speech.
Once the attack was acknowledged as the handiwork of terrorists , however, the perpetrators were cited as being the followers of Al Qaeda, virtually the only officially acknowledged extremists. And here lies the problem: The Obama Administration will not acknowledge that an extreme and violent segment of the Muslim world ranging far beyond the confines of Al Qaeda is at war with us. To do so would have required him to explain why the U.S. had been empowering Islamists, including in Libya, some of whom may have been responsible for leaking information that enabled the terrorists to locate and kill the Americans.
Just why and how has this refusal to name the Islamist enemy come to characterize the four years of Obama's presidency? President Obama agrees with the view that Islamists as a force in world affairs are not be shunned and that wisdom dictates coming to terms with those among them who are hot engaged in active hostilities at this moment. This view, however, is defective, because common to all Islamists is Muslim supremacism and the undeviating pursuit to subvert the non-Islamic world.
Yet, since Barack Obama took office, Islamist antagonists, other than those involved in active hostilities like Al Qaeda and the Taliban, whose hostility cannot be denied or ignored, have gone unnamed. Presidential statements on the anniversaries of the 1983 killing of 242 U.S. servicemen in Lebanon by Hezballah or the 1979 seizure by Islamist students of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, to name two examples, failed to even mention the perpetrators of these acts, as it had become U.S. policy to propitiate both Hezbollah and the Islamists.
Indeed, the Obama Administration has refused to associate attacks on America by Islamists with Islam. Administration officials have spent four years speaking about particular terrorists at home and abroad as isolated "extremists," even when Islamist terrorist connections were readily traceable (for example, the connection between the Fort Hood sniper Nidal Hassan and the American-born Al Qaeda in Yemen leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, who advised him).
While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media.
I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted.
But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call--and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call--came first.
So here are a few more questions for the White House: While President Obama was on the phone for an hour, did his national security advisor Tom Donilon or any other aide interrupt the call or slip him a piece of paper to inform him about what was happening in Benghazi?
Or was President Obama out of the loop for at least an hour as events unfolded and decisions were made? On the other hand, national security staff were obviously with the president during and immediately after the phone call--otherwise how could they have put out their statement right away? Surely his aides told the president about what was happening in Benghazi.
Was there then no discussion of what was or what wasn't being done to help, pursuant to the president's first directive that everything possible be done? Adding another one: Did he tell Bibi what was going on?
Joe Biden's demented comment to the dead SEAL's father seems to make sense only if he ate popcorn and watched the fire-fight in real time - which would be pretty twisted.
Obama's failure to look the man in the eye also seems to indicate that he watched the part of the video but wasn't interested enough to stay for the end.
Hillary was just happy to console the father with assurance that an innocent dude was headed for a rat mask session in Room 101.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/29/2012 1:05 Comments ||
I kept wondering when we might see the Benghazi terrorist death toll from the actions of former Navy SEAL's Woods and Doherty. An undocumented number and total of 60 was rolled out on a blog yesterday.
How long must we now wait for the Champ's apology to the brave, freedom loving Libyan Islamist for their loss? [sark off]
Joe Biden's demented comment to the dead SEAL's father seems to make sense only if he eat ate popcorn and watched the fire-fight in real time - which would be pretty twisted.
I had the same thought. However, I would add "despicable" and "outrageous."
But, a question: if a Spectre, armed Predator, or other air assets were on site, I cannot imagine how the guys at the controls could have just watched, regardless of what orders from a distance may have been. I know I would have said F it and gladly answered for it later. That help never came suggests that such assets were not on site. Are there possibilities I am not accounting for?
But, a question: if a Spectre, armed Predator, or other air assets were on site, I cannot imagine how the guys at the controls could have just watched, regardless of what orders from a distance may have been.
The current Rules of Engagement (ROE) for kinetic action drilled into pilots and troops on the ground over the past 10 years, leave little room for second guessing or independent action.
This was not part of a broader campaign here all players knew the tactical situation on the ground. When you are told "weapons free" will come directly from the White House, you hold your fire. I cannot blame Special Operations Wing (SOW) pilots or pred operators.
The more that comes out, the sicker I get. Fox did an interesting timeline, not sure how accurate it is, but these guys held off a well coordinated attack. Had to be QUD, no one else could put this together.
Had to be QUD, no one else could put this together.
Reports indicated that the attackers were foreigners because they spoke a foreign language. If so, I wonder if they spoke Persian/Farsi?
If Woods and Doherty did kill some number of attackers, where are the bodies? Were they dragged off? If there were bodies and they were not dragged off could this not provide evidence as to where they came from? Any wounded who could be questioned? Did they end up in some local hospital? Blood evidence? If 60 attackers were killed, it would seem there would be a great deal of blood. I'm not in any way trying to detract from their bravery. They went to the fight. They asked for assistance three times and were denied. They were brave and heroic men who provided enough time for some 30 people to be saved. There are just a lot of unanswered questions. If story is kept alive, the truth will come out.
Listen. This was Lybia not Afghanistan: understand that in Lybia it was not simply a matter of desobeying orders but of engaging the responsibility of the United States. Dragging the United States into a war without consent of the governement or even causing her diplomatic problems is good for the Japanese Army of the 30s (remember this path ended leading to war with the United States and to Hiroshima) not for the American Armed Forces.
The decision to go could origiante of any other than the CinC and the blame is to be put at his feet and none other's.
The info I have is that the attackers definitely spoke Arabic but not Lybian Arabic. Understand that the differnces between Arabics of differnet countries are far more substantial than between English or Spanish speaking countriies. From what I have head classic Arabic like spoken in Saudi Arabia is nearly unintelligible for Moroccans or Algerians a bit like Shakespearian English or even Medieval English for an American.
Voice recognition, the taal (language), and the infomation contained in actual intercepts, are Essential Elements of Information (EEI). These elements (when available) must be fused with other pieces such as interrogation reports, source reports, photo-imagery, biometric data, captured documents, weapons, etc. If you stroke your chicken and wait a couple of weeks to pull these elements together, they can become contaminated or lost to history.
I lived in Morocco for six months in 1977. Classical Arabic sounded more like French (soft, flowing), to me, while Moroccan Arabic was much more like German (harsh and gutteral). I spoke a little bit of each at the time. French and German, that is.
I suppose classical Arabic might be more akin to (dead) Latin, while the local dialects more like French, Spanish, and Italian - from the same root.
When you are told "weapons free" will come directly from the White House, you hold your fire.
I see your point, Besoeker - a conditioned response - as well as JFM's point that there was also concern for Libyan sovereignty. But Woods and Doherty disobeyed orders. I just can't see how at least one of their brothers-in-arms would not have broken ranks too, if getting a go/no-go was the only obstacle.
Mr. Wife studied Arabic when he was working in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His tutor was Palestinian, but he was able to practice on the locals. When he went to Morocco he spoke French, because they did not understand his Arabic.
What may be the money quote:
Our Benghazi facility was a half-baked operation. It was not a consulate. It was a "facility" with an ambiguous purpose, at least as far as the unclassified world is concerned. It had a stunning lack of even basic security despite the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya, and in eastern Libya in particular. The security level for our facilities in Libya was driven by the political consideration of maintaining the liberal fiction that Obama's war in Libya had succeeded, that the "Arab Spring" was akin to our own Revolution, and that the region "loved" President Obama. When things fell apart on September 11, the number one concern was not to do anything that would damage that narrative. Blame the crisis on an obscure video; blame it on a press release by the Romney campaign; blame it on subordinates. Above all, do nothing that would appear to show that the Obama misadministration had misunderstood reality in Libya and throughout the Muslim word. The result? Mayhem.
We still haven't gotten much on Brian Terry and Fast and Furious from this administration. They stonewalled that investigation rather than tried to clear it up. One begins to think this administration is the enemy of Americans rather than answerable to Americans.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.