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.

Advertisements

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.

If Saddam Hussein were alive today….


In the aftermath of Obama’s “odd and flat” speech on Iraq from the newly decorated Oval Office, we pause to think about just what this evening may have looked like if the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein and his thug sons were still alive today…..

From Gateway Pundit:

A bow and an apology…

Cut-&-Runners Barack Obama and Joe Biden joined fellow democrats and voted four times to cut funding for US troops serving in Iraq.

Quote of The Day – Tony Blair


Tony Blair (Source: The Daily Mail)

On Friday, Tony Blair was questioned during an Iraq hearing in the UK.  Some believe the questioning was meant to embarrass Tony Blair (kind of like the Obama administration putting KSM on trial in the States — to embarrass and convict George Bush in public 0pinion).

But Tony Blair stood his ground.  Blair is a friend to the US and understands, as GW Bush did, the threat that Iraq posed and the even greater threat that Iran now poses.

Blair’s quote, from the Daily Mail:

Mr Blair insisted: ‘This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It’s a decision.

‘And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given ten years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?

‘The decision I took – and frankly would take again – was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him.’

…He warned that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme now poses an even greater threat.

And, in an apparent rebuke to Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, suggested that if he was still in power he would be championing military action.

The lefties in the US and UK have tried to brush Blair and Bush with some sort of lie/conspiracy meme with regards to the Iraq War.  Of course, multiple countries, the UN, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many Democrats thought Saddam Hussein had WMD and said so.  Guess they were all in on the “conspiracy” and “lies”.

Prostesters (Source: The Daily Mail)

Ironically, the same type of people calling Blair a conspirator were outside on the streets during the hearing protesting Blair with “astroturf” signs that were all the same.  But no organizing or conspiracy there….nothing to see  at all….

Thanks, Tony Blair, for defending the right thing to do.

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

Because sometimes pictures are great reminders….


I’ve seen this picture before, but came across it again today and felt the urge to post it.

generations-of-valor-pic

According to Snopes.com, "the occasion of this photograph was a Veterans Day Commemoration at Dallas City Hall on 11 November 2004. The veteran pictured is Houston James, a survivor of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the Marine is Staff Sgt. Mark Graunke Jr., a member of an ordnance-disposal team who lost his left hand, one leg, and an eye while defusing a bomb in Iraq in July 2003."

It is sad to see our very own President and many in Washington and their supporters who have forgotten that there are REAL men who have gladly given health, time, and life for our freedom. 

 Our history has been written by honorable men and we have nothing for which to apologize –we don’t need a “change” nor a series of policies that begin with  “we can no longer” ….

As the Obama administration seems to remove a freedom a day, please remember those who are the true warriors FOR freedom….those who have fought against the very ideologies abroad that President Obama now wants to implement here.

And never forget that these are our heroes, they are not our enemies.  Those are the faces of true valor, honor, courage, loyalty and duty.  Never forget them.

SOS Clinton seeks to “improve US Image” with Muslims abroad


Hey, Mrs. Clinton, how’s about turning that around and working on that image of Muslims in the US?  Perhaps they may have some responsibility for American attitudes toward Muslims? Ya think?

Clinton, remember this?

Clinton, remember this?

Could it be that the atrocity of 9-11 and Muslims celebrating in the streets was not exactly the kind of relations you seek between us?  Of perhaps the Muslims in our country who couldn’t bring themselves to denounce this savage act of murder?

Or perhaps it might  even be those “moderate” Muslims, even on our own soil, who murder their wives by beheading —  all for “honor”? 

Or maybe, just maybe, it is just barbaric, self-mutilation in the name of Allah that keeps that bond a little loose between Americans and the Islamic World?

Headline From MyWayNews – Clinton seeks to improve US image with Muslims:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged a new American openness to ideas from abroad, especially the Muslim world, during a visit Wednesday to Indonesia…..

……Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, is the second stop in Clinton’s inaugural overseas trip as the top U.S. diplomat. She said that was “no accident,” with the trip designed to show support for the country’s hard-won democracy as well as its efforts to fight terrorism while respecting human rights.

Steps were already being taken to improve relations, she said, announcing at a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda that Peace Corps operations were expected to resume here after a long absence….

….

Though most of the country’s 190 million Muslims practice a moderate form of the faith, public anger ran high over U.S. policy in the Middle East and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration, fueling a small but increasingly vocal fundamentalist fringe.

According to Clinton and the pacifist Left’s view, we must improve OUR image with the MODERATE Muslims who think the US is evil for establishing freedom and democracy for millions oppressed by a savage dictator we chased into a foxhole, tried, and hanged…. and a barbaric group called the Taliban….

And then there’s this.  The foreign minister in Indonesia, where Clinton visited today, says this:

Wirajuda agreed, saying, “We have proven here democracy, Islam and modernity can go hand in hand.”

The next paragraph explaining just how well that’s going with those “moderates” in Indonesia:

The militant group Jemaah Islamiyah has carried out a series of suicide bombings targeting Western interests in Indonesia since 2002, killing more than 240 people, many of them foreign tourists. But experts say a crackdown has severely weakened the movement; the last attack occurred more than three years ago.

And even during Clinton’s visit, that Islamic harmony was apparent:

Security was tight for Clinton’s visit, with 2,800 police deployed in the capital along with members of the army, according to local police. Witnesses saw scattered protests and at least five people were detained by police following a rowdy rally by 200 Muslim university students in front of the U.S. Embassy.

Some protesters sets tires on fire in a city on the capital’s outskirts and others screamed “Hillary is terrorist.”

Oh, and Clinton has a rule to bash Bush  at least once in every country she visits.  Indonesia was no exception:

One of Clinton’s goals in Indonesia is to stress the growing importance of a region that often felt slighted by the Bush administration.

I guess the following examples don’t count….but then again, we are increasingly a country of “those feeling slighted” ourselves despite billions of dollars of debt-financed “help” being thrown our way.

But what did we expect from an Obama Presidency and Clinton State Department?  It’s as if we were never attacked….9/10 appeasement Lefties in a post 9/11 world. 

God Be With Us!