Posts Tagged ‘clinton’

Let’s stipulate the following right at the beginning.

1. We are in a fight, I hope we win.

2. Gaddafi being removed is a good thing.

3. Libyans have the right to determine their own fate.

All of that being said I must confess each day brings a new surprise to me.

I was surprised when Gaddafi was smart enough to offer a ceasefire outside of Benghazi, but I was even more surprised when he decided to flaunt. Honoring it would have put the allies in a difficult position, Gaddafi must have decided he could get by on bluff, bad move.

The willingness of the French to do close support against Armor surprised me. If the Libyan armor is struck on a regular basis this is going to stop any offensives in its tracks.

I’m wondering how long the Tomahawk strikes was planned, I suspect there have been existing contingency plans for such a strike.

Since a lot of Gaddafi’s fighters are from Niger I wonder how that will effect that country’s reaction to all of this, what will it mean?

Hugo Chavez was loudly supporting Gaddafi, He Castro and Morals of Bolivia are not amused:

“We know what’s going to happen: bombs, bombs, war, more suffering for the people, more death,” Chavez said in a televised speech in Caracas.

The socialist leader has been joined by Latin American allies including Castro and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in strongly opposing U.S. and NATO military involvement in Libya, and in suggesting that reports of atrocities by Gadhafi’s troops were overblown or unproven.

In a column published in Cuba’s state media Saturday, Castro asked why the U.N. Security Council exists, and said NATO wields such a colossal military force that it “serves only to show the waste and chaos generated by capitalism.”

Speaking in Bolivia, President Evo Morales condemned the military intervention and said the strategy of some powerful countries has been to “invent a problem, and the problem is wanting to take control of oil.”

Birds of a feather and all that.

Politically the attacks by Michael Moore, Louis Farrahkan and Andrew Sullivan are going to help rather than hurt Obama in the long run.

It is actually funny watching the mainstream left twist itself into pretzels to support this war.

Oh Well.”

Stacy gives us a little history:

In 2001, the usual suspects had scheduled a Sept. 29 protest (“S29″) against the IMF and World Bank, which were scheduled to meet in D.C. that weekend. But after 9/11 the IMF/World Bank meetings were canceled, and so the “anti-globalization” rally instead became the first major anti-war protest of the Bush era.

Even more interesting, you might recall that the left always stressed that it was the Saudi’s that provided hijackers on 9/11 yet we are hitting Iraq. Now we see this from of all places the Huff Po:

According to a cache of al Qaeda documents captured in 2007 by U.S. special operations commandos in Sinjar, Iraq, hundreds of foreign fighters, many of them untrained young Islamic volunteers, poured into Iraq in 2006 and 2007. The documents, called the Sinjar documents, were collected, translated and analyzed at the West Point Counter Terrorism Center. Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.

On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans.

During 2006 and 2007, a total of 1,468 Americans were killed in combat and 12,524 were badly wounded, according to Pentagon records.

These are the guys we are fighting for. Or as the telegraph put it: Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side

If you want to know how this is going to end, don’t watch Gaddafy watch his sons.

Apparently this is now the 3rd Clinton term:

This division in our leadership could not have been more evident today watching Obama speak from Brazil followed by Clinton’s Paris conference. Obama was a blip, his vaunted verbal facility from the ’08 presidential election now seeming a distant memory from a particularly bland and pompous advertising campaign. Meanwhile, Clinton handled her press conference like a true statesman, fielding questions exactly with ready answers. She had thought things through and it showed. The woman had not been off playing golf or taking samba lessons in Corcovado. She obviously skipped the March Madness, as well, for more significant matters.

And everything old is new again:

The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” were arrested Saturday after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon’s secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police.

Libya is now Vietnam? How about that.

Pam Geller reminds us of this quite from a certain Chicago Reverend:

Obama’s spirtual svengali, former Nation of Islam adherent Jerry Wright’s longtime close association with Farrakhan is well known. In April 2008, when he appeared at the National Press Club in order to address the controversy that had engulfed the Obama campaign because of his incendiary anti-American remarks from the pulpit, his security detail was made of members of the Nation of Islam. He and Farrakhan even once traveled to Libya to confer with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi – as Wright recalled during the 2008 campaign: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gaddafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

As you recall that didn’t happen, apparently they considered Sarah Palin a bigger threat after all it’s not like she would be the type to have Purim dinner with the PM in Israel or something. But we are apparently seeing the Palin Doctrine in action.

I have no idea how this is going to end, but the tribal nature of his military support is likely going help keep them loyal.

I still think that April 1st Gaddafi will still be in charge of most of Libya. What do you think?

Update: Just a coincidence I’m sure.

The wonderful memories:

September 2007

But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad – which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation.

Sept 2009:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military’s blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.

Clinton’s comments in an interview with PBS television late Monday came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.

Clinton expressed “respect” for McChrystal’s assessment that the United States would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.

“But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite,”

Well at least she said it with a bit less venom.

Let’s hope this president gives Mrs. Clinton opinion the same weight that it was given the last time.

What is this thing with generals? Next thing you know she will be going after General Hospital.

The real sad thing is the politics of it all:

There’s this anonymous quote from one observer: “He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war.” Isn’t this extraordinary? Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the “necessary war” (in Obama’s words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It’s hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security.

No sign of the idea of WINNING the “formerly necessary war“! Maybe they didn’t mean it. It was so bad like that on Morning Joe where they were saying the problem was the people stuck on the idea of winning I had to change the channel.

That’s liberals for you. Pass Obamacare and put the cost on our children and grandchildren, Concede defeat and pass the danger and the risks on to our children and grandchildren.

It is for this reason more than any other that Glenn Beck is all wet when it comes to McCain v Obama. He might have been poor on domestic issues but he damn well wouldn’t sell out the country when it comes to the war. We wouldn’t have to worry about defense being ignored period.

2010 & 2012 can’t come soon enough for me.

Update: I’ll wager Baldilocks would have given anything to not be able to take this victory lap

You know something hit me today during the coverage of the British terrorist release business.

I can’t see how England did this without at least informing the US if this is true the big loser is Not going to be president Obama.

Back when Hillary was named Sec of State it seemed a shrewd move for both parties. By making Mrs. Clinton a part of the administration she is tied to it, and by taking State she not only avoids having to deal with a declining economy but she puts herself in a position to resign in protest at a key moment if she wants to make a move.

It it turns out that the British DID inform the US prior to the release/deal concerning Al Megrahi release, that would likely have gone up the command ladder. It is impossible that it would not have hit Hillary before it reached the president.

Now Mrs. Clinton is in an untenable position. As she didn’t object at the time she becomes complicit, and if she HAD then the president backs her up and has another mini toughguy episode to play with.

It is not impossible that the British foolishly (or cleverly) didn’t say a word to us, but baring that this might be another example of playing the Chicago game very well.

Pure speculation of course but that’s what I think.

Update: Mr. #24,154 agrees that it’s unlikely the Administration didn’t know. You can decide if that improves my case.