Never forget!


Advertisements

Little Miss “We have a right to disagree with any administration” now asks Obama administration critics “Whose side are you on”?


GAWD…this woman just disgusts me….I have never understood how a so-called lawyer who rode the coattails of her husband’s Presidency, then carpetbagged to become Senator of New York…has any qualifications for the position of Secretary of State.   Fact is, she doesn’t.

She is just another partisan posing as “smart power” while nearly everything she says and does falls squarely on the side of “dumb“, much like her boss, Obama.  Those who call her qualified and the “smartest woman in the room” confuse brains for an “I’m no Tammy Wynette” uber-liberal-feminist-corruptocrat-opportunist portraying a man.

Hillary Clinton has now asked those who oppose President Obama’s actions in Libya — “Whose side are you on“?

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Whose side are we on?  Well, how about the side of the rule of law?

From HotAir.com:

This is really just the cherry on top of the sundae that is our Libya mission, isn’t it? First, the guy who became famous for opposing “dumb wars” launches a new mission in Libya.  Then he fights tooth and nail to avoid getting congressional approval, going so far as to ignore his own lawyers as to whether operations there are legal.  Then his own secretary of state — who spent years trying to make amends to the anti-war crowd for voting to invade Iraq — turns around and kinda sorta questions the loyalty of administration critics.

Never mind that this Libya war kinetic military action was begun with NO  Congressional approval (unlike the Iraq war) and Obama has declared that he does not need to follow the War Powers Act in Libya which is the law of the land.   BTW – President Bush had Congressional approval and many in this country and outside of this country who believe that Saddam had WMD.  All legitimate basis to go to war.  And the result has been a country that has been saved from the grips of its tyrant and, while still somewhat vulnerable, is a fledgling democracy.

But, apparently, Miss Whitewater thought it patriotic to offer dissent on legal wars, just not the illegal ones that she supports.

Well, here is Miss Testosterone’s words in 2003 when she wished to disagree with the actions of then President Bush (Warning: SCREECH alert!)

 “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Hypocritical Screeching….a Hillary Clinton staple.

What Obama will say in his (10-day-late) Libya speech


Fear me, Muammar!

Tonight Obama will finally lower himself (in his mind) to address the American public on his Libya mission….10 days after it began.

I don’t know if I’ll watch because I usually get nauseous with his lies and spin.

Besides,  I think I know what we will hear from Obama in one form or another tonight (my thoughts in parentheses):

  • The mission has been clear and focused (even though the mission and actions are NOT clear….and the focused “no-fly zone” has expanded into an effort to prop up the rebels and take sides in a civil war in Libya…and Obama has said Gaddafi must go while declaring that is not our mission)
  • MY mission is successful ( as I mentioned before…Obama will declare success even though the mission and end game is not clear)
  • Implementing a no-fly zone only (even though we are bombing tanks and other targets)
  • We are intervening in a humanitarian crisis (never mind that European oil is at stake… War for oil, anyone?) 
  • Intervening is vital to our national interest (but Defense Chief Gates said just yesterday it is not)
  • We had approval of Arab League and UN (no Congressional approval, though)
  • I repeatedly consulted/discussed with Congress (even though Congress was not consulted prior to bombing, only briefed as it began)
  • Supporting Libyan people and their “democracy” movement (despite the fact that some of the rebels are al Qaeda fighters–likely those who fought against the US in Iraq)
  • We put together a multilateral coalition unlike other President’s in the past who went in unilaterally ( he means Bush and Iraq and he is lying about this…Bush’s coalition came after months of discussion in Congress, 17 UN resolutions and more countries on board than Obama has in Libya)
  • We got out in “days” as I said we would and handed over to NATO (never mind it looks weak AND NATO is pretty much the US of A!)

I think we might also be able to play Obama Libya speech “Bingo” and see how many times he says the following:

  • Success, I, me, unilateral/(Bush insinuation), humanitarian, handing off, NATO, bloodbath, let me be clear, I did, I have, smart, no-fly zone, I’ve said from the beginning

Here are some things Obama will not utter tonight:

  • The word “war” (kinetic military action, perhaps?)
  • A “let me be clear” reminder of his own statements about Presidents declaring war without approval, about “dumb wars”, about how we can’t go about helping every nation in need
  • al Qaeda
  • oil
  • that his hand off to NATO means that we are still footing the bill and pretty much run NATO with our manpower and leadership.

And you can bet that the paradoxes of the Libyan War outlined by Victor Davis Hansen will not be addressed by Obama.  I highly recommend reading VDH’s piece here.

Oh–and for the media’s part, don’t expect a replay of the hand-wringing they displayed for Bush and the Iraq War.  You can just hear some of the following and how it would be spoken and portrayed if this were a Republican President/Bush in office:

  • Still no answers on why Congress was not consulted, but the Arab League and the UN were.
  • And tonight, despite the rhetoric of the President, we find that the rebels in Libya have al Qaeda amongst their midst…if not fully comprised of al Qaeda fighters who fought against the US in Iraq.  Are we propping up our enemies?
  • What will this WAR cost the American taxpayers in this poor economy?
  • Why choose Libya for humanitarian aid?  Or is this really about a war for oil?  Join us tonight at 10PM for the exclusive.
  • Obama’s Defense Sec and Sec of State gave differing viewpoints on our need to be in this unilateral war.  We, the MSM, will ask about the chaos in the President’s administration.

…..I could go on.

Have fun watching our President —10 days, at least, too late.

Obama claims the mission he didn’t clearly define in Libya is succeeding


I said this to my husband on day one of the bombing in Libya….

(Official White House Photo)

“Watch and see…Obama will not clearly define the mission in Libya and will skirt the questions being asked so that he can claim success no matter what happens.”

This is Obama’s MO (method of operation) on many things….

He has been unclear and contradicting from the get-go on Libya.  (and, one could argue, disconnected since he chose to leave the country for  5 days while engaging the troops in war in Libya).  From Yahoo/Politico:

Obama was asked the most obvious question — what is the U.S. endgame in Libya? — several times during his trip [to Latin America]. His answers seemed deliberately obtuse: To stop a humanitarian crisis and, hopefully, drive Muammar Qadhafi from power, while at the same time ceding leadership of the effort to countries with a direct regional stake in the outcome — France and Arab League nations — sooner rather than later.

Well, it didn’t take long….he declared success today….

From American Pundit:

In Saturday’s speech, Obama said its military mission in Libya is ‘clear and focused’, despite some criticism. “We’re succeeding in our mission,” he said. “We’ve taken out Libya’s air defenses. Gaddafi’s forces are no longer advancing across Libya.”

Also, Obama mentions taking out Libyan air defense and that the “forces’ are no longer advancing across Libya….

But I thought we were only implementing a “no-fly zone” which may include bombing air defenses but not ground “forces”.

Don’t get me wrong…I think our military has been successful in what they have been asked to do–just as they always are–but that doesn’t mean the mission is clear nor has it been communicated effectively in this country.

Of course, Obama also claimed that he has kept us informed…then why so many questions? Another question?

Even though we have seen SOME Democrats object to Obama’s methods on taking us into this war (ie. little consultation with Congress while consulting with and agreeing with the United Nations), we still have not seen the full-blown fierce rhetoric of the Left that was spewed at George W. Bush…and Bush compiled a larger coalition and consulted with Congress for months before Congress also AGREED to action in Iraq.  Where’s the “rush to war” and “war for oil” pronouncements from that crowd now?

(Or would that be “rush to kinetic military action” and “kinetic military action for oil”?)

And perhaps even more disturbing than Obama’s MO for declaring his success, is the fact the reports coming out in the last couple of days indicate that we may be propping up al Qaeda fighters against Gaddafi.  As bad as Gaddafi is do we want al Qaeda jihadis exerting major influence if Gaddafi goes? 

From UK Telegraph headline:

“Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime”

I still don’t understand why Obama wanted to jump on board this campaign.  For the anti-war professor who railed against Presidents going to war without Congress and “dumb” wars, it is a bit mind-boggling to understand his thinking on this.

It is clear that the UK and France have a vested interest in oil there, but Obama has went out of his way to alienate those two allies in the last two years. Why would he do this to help them now?

Or is it that Obama saw pressure from the United Nations and will take this opportunity to prove (in his mind) that the world doesn’t need America as a leader.  And to prove that he fully intends to follow the lead of the UN and international community instead of obtaining Congressional buy-in and doing what is best for the United States.

Then again, there are theories that Obama wishes to prop up these Muslim radicals (like Al Qaeda) in the region.  It seems to be what has happened in Egypt.  Get rid of the bad dictator so that an even worse ideological group of Islamic radicals can gain the reigns of power. 

Was it pressure from the UN?  Is he trying to prove a point about his professor’s take on war and peace?  Or he is purposefully propping up the radical Islamic world?

The one item he has stated – to assist in a humanitarian crisis— is the least likely reason why he decided to go into Libya…..if it were, we would have been in Iran two years ago, Egypt three months ago, and Syria and Bahrain now.

Cartoon of the Day: Decision Points vs. He Points


(H/T: HotAir.com)

I am currently reading Bush’s book “Decision Points”.  And it is aptly titled.  Bush discusses major decisions in his Presidency and his life.  Interesting read so far!

American Thinker: If George W. Bush Had…


Simple subtle points for the more liberal, progressive, Obamabots to consider. 

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within ten years, would you have concurred?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think he was just an ignorant hothead?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder whose side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling merely because one company had an accident, would you have thought this was disproportionate and harmful to American workers?

If George W. Bush had forced a change in your health care coverage even though the majority of people did not seek or approve of these changes, would you begin to worry about an abuse of power by the executive branch of the government?

If George W. Bush continually bashed the United States and seemed to side with known dictators, would you feel comfortable?

If George W. Bush had been the first president to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how linguistically inept he is?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in New York City, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have endorsed this move?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have chuckled with approval?

If George W. Bush had given British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, would you have considered this shabby and not befitting proper presidential protocol?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have been taken aback?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his Cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current with their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is an embarrassment?

There’s more…read them all here.

(UPDATE: Thanks for the link from Political Realities blog.)

American Thinker: Summing up the failure that is Obama and Dems in graphs


Over the last year, Randall Hoven at American Thinker has been putting out a “Graph of the Day” piece.  Each graph has generally been constructed from neutral data and each has demonstrated the failures of our government and the effect on our economy, defense, and more.

Today, Hoven summarizes what we have learned from those graphs and it is not a pretty picture for America…much less for Obamabots and those touting the brilliance of the “progressive’ agenda.

The summary is a great resource backed by data.  Read it all and share it!

……..what can we learn from a year’s worth of graphs and data?

Then came Obama.
He asked for the second half ($350B) of TARP bailout money even before he was inaugurated. (He also voted for the TARP bailout while in the Senate.) Then, as president, he went on to buy car companies with it.
“Pay as you go” went out the window, as Obama’s plans would explode the deficits, even in the years after the current recession was assumed over. He signed a “stimulus” bill within one month of being sworn into office, adding $814B to the 2009-2019 deficit in one fell swoop.
His crowning achievement was the trillion-dollar overhaul of all health care in the nation under a byzantine system of additional costs, additional taxes, and additional bureaucracy. The legislators who “wrote” the bill did not even read it. Estimates of its cost cannot be trusted.
All of his plans to end the recession and spur growth failed.

Yet much of this could have been, and was, predicted.

  • Obama’s very own chief of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, demonstrated in academic studies that federal spending did not end the Great Depression or any post-war recession and that tax increases have significant and negative impacts on economic growth.
  • Fiscal “stimuli” did not work in Japan and do not seem to work anywhere else, either.
  • The Heritage Foundation has the cross-country data that show that economic freedom leads to prosperity.
  • Arthur Laffer has similar cross-state data that show the same thing.
  • International Monetary Fund data indicate that higher government debt leads to slower growth.
  • An academic study based on data from 44 countries over two centuries concluded the same thing: higher debt leads to slower growth.
For those who thought President Obama would overturn all the Bush policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, “civil rights,” etc., sorry to disappoint you.
  • The enemy combatant population has not come down much at Gitmo.
  • The drawdown in Iraq is about what it would have been under a President Bush.
  • Our military involvement in Afghanistan has exploded under Obama, leading to more troops there, more U.S. fatalities, more Afghan civilian fatalities, and little apparent progress in reducing resistance or winning “hearts and minds.”
  • The federal government is authorizing wiretaps and fighting drugs as much as ever. It is even deporting illegal immigrants as much as ever.
Instead of fixing anything real, President Obama spent our money chasing dreams. His stimulus caused an explosion in spending on climate change research. Yet man-caused, catastrophic global warming, which Obama wants to address with an expensive Cap & Trade program, is becoming ever less credible.
Obama’s dreams of “green energy” and “green jobs” are equally empty.
  • The U.S. leads the world in recoverable fossil fuel resources, which are enough to last many more decades at least.
  • Renewable” energy resources, other than hydroelectric dams, supply less than 5% of all energy in the U.S., even after years of government-funded research, incentives, regulations, and subsidies. Fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydroelectric will dominate for decades to come.
  • The most economical source of electricity for some time to come is natural gas. The most expensive is solar panels.
  • Contra Bill Maher, Brazil is not exactly some outstanding example of bio-fuel generation or energy conservation we need to follow.
  • Spain has demonstrated that “green energy” leads to fewer net jobs, green or not.
  • Clean coal” is no panacea. It costs 27% to 83% more, uses 73% to 100% more water resources, and is technologically immature and uncertain. All that, just to use less of what all animals on earth exhale and all plants on earth inhale.

Not to put too fine a point on it: liberals have been wrong about almost everything, and conservatives have been right about almost everything, at least in my lifetime (half a century). That goes not only for the economy, the role of government, and climate change, but also for many “social issues” as well.

To me, coming up with a new graph every day for a year, this was a steady drumbeat. And always the same tune: things are bad, getting worse, and Obama and the Democrats are doing everything wrong.

Is there any good news?  Maybe.
  • The solutions do not require defying the laws of physics.
  • Other countries, as diverse as Canada, Sweden, and New Zealand, have reduced government debt by large amounts in the recent past and lived to tell the tale.
  • More people identify themselves as conservatives, and they outnumber liberals by more than two to one right now.
  • As bad as we are, much of Europe is in as bad or worse shape. (That might not be good news, but at least misery enjoys company.)