The milbloggers have the decoding rings out on the Captain Phillips rescue. Greyhawk;
[W]hen I watched the press conference, what stood out in my mind were the repeated references to these three points:
1. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him
2. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him, and
3. The hostage was in imminent danger with an AK47 pointed at him.
The tests for our President continue and I now have multiple confirmations saying that the initial set of rules that Obama put on the Navy forbid any active attempts to rescue the hostage and only after they requested he reinstate their authority to act if the hostage was in imminent danger did he do so.
Read both links.
Hey eskimo
Just because Bush & co. were/are corrupt liars, no-one said they were competent ones. The revenue from that oil was also supposed to pay for the war, they said.
Nope! 4000 dead for no reason and the US public are paying the trillions of dollars for the purposeless war, thereby precipitating the current economic crisis.
Heckuva job, Bushie.
“Bleet, the First Mutt didn’t do any of that. He sat in the oval orifice and told the guys to do what he knew they were going to do anyway. He did’t make that call, his military chief of staff did. The man’s no hero. I understand he still can’t straighten up without putting his back out”-
SKIP
So do these same set of rules apply when you brain turds say that Bush kept America safe?
You guys are so desperate it really is sad.
I think you would rather they would have died than the troops succeeed you guys dont support the troops.
Works both ways doesnt it?
Yes, right of centre, it really is sad isn’t it?
It’s like their cheerleader saying he wants the President to fail.
They’re ‘party over country’ traitors.
Patterico.com Post: Poll – August 19, 2006 –
“Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Dem = 51% No.
P.S.: “Dissent is patriotic.”
“So do these same set[sic] of[sic] rules apply…”
To the effect that W. didn’t micro-manage the battlefield from the White House, yes.
“…3000 people killed in the biggest mass murder on US soil as a result”
Thank heavens 9/11 was entirely attributable to Bush, and that clinton’s previous half-dozen or so worthless responses to terrorism against the US had absolutely nothing to do with it. Oh, and you forgot to mention Bush was reading “My Pet Goat” when the planes hit. And fire doesn’t melt steel, either.
“It’s like their cheerleader saying he wants the President to fail. They’re ‘party over country’ traitors”
You mean traitors like democrats who sabotaged the war in Iraq at every convenient opportunity, for political purposes? Or harry reid who traitorously proclaimed “The war is lost”, before the successful surge was engaged? Those kinds of traitors?
Oops! I forgot. Hillary clinton can say, “It’s not un-American to proclaim you disagree and protest against your president”, and it’s certainly not treasonous. Treason only surfaces when people speak out and it’s the democrats and obama in power, right?
Actually, it’s surprising you can see events on earth at all, bleet, from whatever planet or terrestrial body upon which you live. It’s a long way to look, eh?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
“I’m willing to be the Great “O” hasn’t a clue where all his special black ops groups are.” Texascanuck
He wouldn’t. Neither would any other politician, and for good reasons:
a) politicians are genetically unable to STFU and some of them think it would be a great thing to get their own soldiers killed doing something to which they object, like taking out scumbags (that pretty much covers all of the left side of the spectrum and a fair chunk of the right as well); or to get some political mileage
b) to cover the boss’ butt through something called plausible deniability.
Any black ops whose details are known to anyone outside the chain of command are by definition blown. The only thing the Prez or our PM needs to know is that a) there is the capacity to take action, and b) they need to make the call as to whether or not the action needs to be taken (Special Forces are a strategic asset and thus their employment is held at the strategic, i.e. top military leadership advising the political leadership level). The rest is up the military chain of command to execute, and with SF, that chain of command is very short indeed.
I don’t believe that the big Owe did anything in regards to this crisis except claim the credit at the end of it. My speculation is that no one actually asked Owe and the lower echelons worried about what to do. After waiting for the dithering to end the officer in command took it upon himself to dispatch the pirates and dare Owe to fire him or take the credit. Owe took the credit and the officers in the military have taken note. It wouldn’t surprise me if similar actions spring up in other places where the US military is faced with a put up or shut up situation.
mhb:
When Clinton got word a bombing plot was planned for LAX on the turning of the millenium he brought the heads of the CIA, FBI & everyone else into his office, they brainstormed, and the miserable sacks of sh*t were caught at the border before they could carry out their plan.
Bush got his briefing, said “Okay you covered your ass” and continued with his vacation. Result: 9-11.
End of conversation.
mhb:
I believe the original quote by Rush was: “If Obama’s plan is to remake America into a socialist state, I hope he fails.”
Having seen how socialist, national socialist and other totalitarian states suck creativity out of human beings, I would agree with the sentiment.
Truth of the matter is, Obama would be content to turn America into a Trudeau-like Canada and that’s bad enough.
bleet, here’s a precis of anti-US terrorism while on clinton’s watch:
26FEB93: Terrorist 1st attack on WTC, killing 6 and wounding over 1,000. Clinton’s response to this: treat as criminal activity vs terrorism
13NOV95: Terrorists attack US training facilty in Saudi Arabia, killing 5 Americans and 2 Indians.
25JUN96: Terrorists attack a Marines barracks (the Khobar Towers apartments) in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Outcome: 19 dead Americans and 300 wounded.
7AUG98: Terrorists strike at (3) separate US Embassies in Africa – Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam. Total 224 dead and thousands wounded.
12OCT00: Terrorists bomb the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding 37 others. Unless I’m mistaken, this was when clinton bombed a sudan aspirin factory as a bait/switch from his impeachment trial.
And let’s not forget clinton had bin laden on a silver platter, but let him go. Clinton’s deputy AG jamie gorelick was responsible for the intelligence “wall” erected in the 90s that hampered domestic counterintelligence and was a major factor leading up to 9/11, although her co-authored 911 Commission report denies this (quelle surprise!). She should’ve been testifying in front of the Commission, rather than sitting on it.
All these useless responses to terrorist attacks on US soil by the clinton administration emboldened the islamists to prepare and execute 9/11. If the clinton administration had any useful intel pre-911, why did they not act on it themselves? Apparently you are correct, bleet: but the CYA was done by clinton & pals on their way out the door. And the Bush admin was entirely at fault for 9/11 for not rushing hither & yon on this “intel” that the clinton admin couldn’t rouse themselves from their torpor to act on? Clinton was far more effective incinerating a compound full of whack-job cultists than he ever was in dealing with islamic terrorism.
The hated and reviled Bush, on the other hand, prevented attacks on US soil from 9/11 to 2009.
“End of conversation”, indeed.
mhb
Bleet is a genius. Wile E Coyote is also a genius. It says so on their business cards!
bleet – (gee I hate to do this…),
When the Arab with the black hair, beard, sunglasses and body odour showed up at the border wearing a “I’m gonna blow up LAX” t-shirt was detained, I’m pretty sure Clinton and Obama were too busy setting up the fall of the financial system through ACORN and other similar socialist epiphanies to even notice.
And, even I am not arrogant enough to suggest the discussion is over. I’ll leave that little gem to you and your ilk.
A few corrections, mhb:
The USS Cole bombing occurred, as you say, in 2000. Clinton’s bombing of the apsirin factory occurred in 1998, back when, yes, his impeachment trial was happening. Just two years’ difference, mhb.
It wasn’t until a little bit into Bush’s term that it was ascertained that Al Queda was responsible for the Cole bombing. No retaliation was planned however, for as Condoleeza Rice explained “The President doesn’t want to swat at flies.”
Talk about “emboldening the Islamists to prepare and execute 9/11!” This, coupled with “You’ve covered your ass” makes GWB’s culpability undeniable.
But salute your ‘Mission accomplished’-codpiece hero, mhb! He prevented attacks on US soil throughout his term of office….uh….except for the biggest mass murder in US history….
(and then used it to mount a diastrous war that he couldn’t finish off, and left office as the most hated President in history)
Aside from all that, though, whoooh – what a record!
Obama is getting lots of kudos for authorizing the use of lethal force. Maybe these atta-boys for decisive action will embolden him to forsake his Jimmy Carter inclinations in dealing with the thugs of the world. The next incident will reveal if he has learned from this one.
a diastrous war that he couldn’t finish off
Do you still maintain the Surge was ineffective? As Limbaugh predicted, the closer the dems came to winning the presidency, Iraq faded to the background. Now that it’s obama in charge, when was the last time you heard the shrill cries of “defeat” in iraq? Bush finished it successfully, whatever revisionist history you subscribe to, bleet. There are many blue-thumbed voting iraqis no longer in fear of living under a tyrant who might agree with that.
So clinton bombed the aspirin factory in 1998? Thanks for the correction – it was diversionary bait & switch from the embassy bombings at that time.
I see there is little point debating your views of the causes of 9/11, bleet, and I’ve no desire to educate those who would prefer to remain ignorant. That’s your right, so please exercise it as you see fit. Do keep in mind that you appear to be one of millions still in the thralls of the pathology known as “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, and it manifests itself even now, when – pssst! – Bush is no longer president. As for Bush as the “most hated President in history”, certainly those on the far left – yourself included – will despise him until the bitter end. No harm there; the you and the michael moore crowd hold less sway over ordinary folks than you’d likely care to admit, and it’s certainly your prerogative to simmer in your own bile. Nobody really cares.
However, bush governed by his principles and what he thought was best, as opposed to what his coterie of anti-american racist baiters, felons and terrorists would have him do. Bush didn’t govern by the polls, nor did he need a teleprompter to guide his every public utterance. History will be kinder to GW Bush than you and your hating pals will want to admit, bleet.
And as for “most hated president”, let’s just wait until 2012 before passing complete judgement, shall we?
mhb
bleeeeet is a trooooooll and will say -anything- no matter how ridiculous.
Back under the bridge with you.
During WW II the Germans came up with a clever idea for harassing Allied merchant shipping. This was the armed merchant cruiser. They were regular fast freighters with concealed gun batteries which could be a handful even for warships up to the tonnage of a light cruiser. They would pose an interesting dilemma for your garden variety pirate. Escorted convoys are also an excellent idea as well as attacks on shore bases. The worst option is Obama’s theory of inviting the pirates aboard for milk and cookies followed up by dialogue.
Did she pick these needles up ? or Did she call the Fire Department ? or just left them. That is my question? Or did she just take a picture of them.
“God forbid the Americans ever have to pay Somolian pirates a ransom.”
You will go far in electoral politics with a slogan like that.
“When Clinton got word a bombing plot was planned for LAX on the turning of the millenium he brought the heads of the CIA, FBI & everyone else into his office, they brainstormed, and the miserable sacks of sh*t were caught at the border before they could carry out their plan” – the delusional bleet.
The only reason those Canadians were caught at the border is because they were sweating like stuck pigs, and the border guard, with no orders from above, only his training, noticed it and took them aside.
Yes MHB
The ‘surge’ was effective at bringing levels of violence down to where they had previously been before. As you feel the sacrifice of US life was justified by that, and by the necessity of removing Hussein, one wonders whether you consider that your own life should be sacrificed to that end as well.
63% of ameican do not feel the sacrfice has been worth it, but then, they’re only the people doing the sacrificing. And they support President Obama taking the troops out by 2011.
I’d like to remind you mhb that it isn’t 2003, so the theorem you far-right types devised to impugn anyone who had criticisms of your feurher – BDS – really doesn’t apply anynmore. Sorry again to upset your little teaparty with facts, but by your own logic, the majority of the American people now have BDS.
They’re the ‘ordinary folk’ you speak so touchingly of, and no, they’re not under the influence of Michael Moore, but under the influence of the facts of one of the most disastrous presidencies in memory.
The sad theme of denial running through your post is exemplified by your quoting Limbaugh as an authority. Though I understand he’s a god to your brand of frothing-at-themouth far-right zealots, you must be aware that among the American people at large – those ‘ordinary folk’ – his approval rating is at 19% – Dick Cheney territory.
Your disturbing ease in quoting him as an authority on anything shows how very much you exist in a bubble of unquestioned assumptions. Yes, with your right-wing coterie it might carry weight to reference the wisdom of Limbaugh, to remark on the smashing success of the Iraq war, and to presume that the ‘ordinary folk’ revere Bush – no matter what those pesky facts, and that pesky ol’ reality says.
But outside of that bubble mhb, you just come off as…sad, really.
bleet, there’s really no point in debating you, because like most of you on the left, you are not interested in facts. You’re not interested in “debate”, either, but only in fueling fires of adversity. That’s fine if it floats your boat, but it’s a wee bit tiring, and belies a deeper pathology, I think.
I’ve one question for you, bleet.
Why do you hate so much?
You guys won the election; your man-child is president and you control both houses. Your man is doing his best to implement radical socialism in the USA, and his foreign policy is one of appeasement that Chamberlain himself would approve. Perhaps the day will come yet where rogue and terrorist nations are welcomed openly by obama, and the US position as Policeman of the World is consigned to the dustbin of history. Certainly the US economy and the incredible success of the American Experiment are failing outright with current economic policies, and we’re seeing for the first time in US history the nationalization of key industries. It will only be a matter of time before crippling carbon taxes push what’s left of the american economy over the brink of collapse.
So why, bleet, are you not dancing in the streets? Why so glum?
Why do you hate, bleet? Why are you and your lot not on top of the world? You still rail about Bush II, and he’s now consigned to the history books. Why do you fear, and therefore hate, Limbaugh & other conservatives? Can you hardly wait for the day of the Fairness Doctrine, whereby the last possible outpost of conservative free speech is shut down? Is it outrageous to you that there are forums for non-liberals to espouse their views, where liberalism is held in contempt? Doubtless you would love to see censorship of the internet, too; I’d wager my last dollar you are one of the vanguard who defend the “human rights” commissions with all your soul.
Because in the end, bleet, as sophisticated as you try making yourself, you are… just another angry, bitter liberal. You consider yourself an intellectual, but tend to re-hash the same tired old, leftish boilerplate. Doubtless you proclaim to friends that you are – as a true liberal – “tolerant”, but in this blog the real you emerges: completely intolerant of anyone or anything not conforming in mindless lockstep with a ruthless ideology that brooks no criticism and demands unswerving loyalty at the pain of ridicule, marginalization and punishment.
Ask yourself another question, bleet: how far would you go, personally, to ensure all others share your views? To what extent would you like to see this blog shut down in order that conservative viewpoints never see the light of day? Do you really honour liberty and freedom: the right of others to speak their minds and hold their own views, even if they conflict mightily with your own? This is the behaviour and ideology of the conservative: they value true “diversity” of thought, rather than stifling it. This is why you are allowed to post unfettered at SDA, bleet; you are not censored by its host, but you do collect the opposing viewpoints you see based on your opinions.
Contrast this to your brethren at leftwing sites, bleet. How many right-of-center contrarians do you see at rabble, for example? There you see true liberalism at work: it’s a left-wing bubble chamber that brooks no contrarian opinion, and it is banned should it rear its head.
As a conservative, bleet, I find most of your posts lacking in logic, rife with moral relativism, evasiveness and an angry, snide undertone of condescension for those with whom you disagree. And know what? That’s fine with me, friend. I would no more attempt to refuse you your viewpoints or squelch your opinions as I would wish for anyone to do likewise to myself. I understand the importance of a democratic and free society to permit all manners of opinions, even those it feels are politically incorrect, or possibly counter-intuitive to the principles of freedom and democracy.
Can you, bleet, and your angry, self-righteous liberal hordes, say the same?
mhb
Meh.. bleet is typical of the far-left: perpetual entitlement-minded adolescents who have never thought about, let alone experienced anything other than their own egos. His kind is about as relevant to society as… well… irrelevant people whose life is predicated upon sponging off the thoughtful, productive members of said society. His hate and resentment comes from knowing that he is irrelevant and could not make a decent living without the government safety net, let alone prosper as a free citizen, so he seeks to pull down everyone to his small, mean, pathetic level.
Tell me bleet, what service have you ever performed for your fellow humans, or your country – you know, unselfishly putting yourself out there for the greater good? Your kind is good at telling everyone else how great your ideas and feelings are, and how primitive those who disagree with you are, but at the end of the day, your kind is not among the people who keep this country going, who protect you, feed you, pay for your entitlements. We are the quiet people who despair at the idiocy of our politicians, the dishonesty of our media and the mulish blindness of our fellow canadians who refuse to face reality and take charge of their lives. We are tired of you bleet, and your ilk. Do us a favour and grow up already.
mhb, that was a marvelous post. You are a saint.
But, pearls before swine unfortunately.
“I understand the importance of a democratic and free society to permit all manners of opinions…”
See, the problem is that bleet and his fellow travelers don’t really want a free and democratic society. They want a society where they get to do what they want, and YOU get to do what they want as well, namely pay for it.
Freedom is scary, because it means you are free to refuse to buy bleet’s toothpaste for him. You are free to tell him “no” when he begs for money to save the whales, or save the Earth, or free needles to save the poor junkies, or save General Motors and all those union jobs, or whatever shiny thing has caught his magpie attention today.
He knows you don’t want to give up that money, and so he A) hates you and B) supports anything that takes the choice away from you. Pay your taxes and shut the hell up, this is the Liberal message.
Getting his ass in gear and making his OWN money is not an option, because as a proper Leftist he’s completely unequipped to do anything useful. Plus, he knows he won’t be able to keep it anyway. Taxes.
bleet is left with no option other than to post irritating things on other people’s blogs. He is that lowest of internet denizens, the troll.
Thanks for the kind words, Phantom.
What I see more and more is an increasing anger and resentment in many people when they compare themselves and their life situations to others. This is not a comment against bleet, but – unfortunately – against many of those living in our society. How often do you hear people grumbling the tired old marxist mantra “make the rich pay more”? These people need to ask themselves how much better their own lives will be when higher earners are taxed more disproportionately than now. Does that get them a bigger house, or a nicer car? No, it doesn’t. By doubling the income taxes on somebody making twice as much as me, it improves my own situation exactly… zero. The only thing it gives me is the smug “satisfaction” that – somehow – the higher earners are penalized and “brought down to size”. What kind of life attitude is this, where I can only be happy when somebody else is made miserable? But that is the essence of socialism: the equal distribution of misery.
It really boils down to the sin of envy, and now, with politicians like obama, we are witnessing the wholesale social re-engineering of the US based on envy politics. Obama and the democrats are literally stealing the hope of a generation of young americans, and perhaps older ones, too. Not only are they told regularly that they cannot possibly make a life for themselves without government intervention, but they are undergoing quasi-pavlovian conditioning to detest the producers and entrepreneurs who make it possible for people to have the trappings of life that they enjoy today. As Mark Steyn writes, the government establishes itself as a “pusher” of ever-increasing social services, and more and more able citizens are set up as willing “addicts”, with no hope (or worse, desire) to break the habit.
How many jobs are created by people on government subsidies? What capital do they invest to spur innovation, production and economic growth? That is not a shot at those who have fallen on bad times, but illustrative of the simple fact that it takes money to make money… and employ the vast majority of us who aren’t able or willing to go into business for ourselves. When government controls the wealth-generating capacity of the nation (socialism), who can be surprised when business falters and hard times arise? When did governments actually spend tax dollars on projects with real economic return, rather than ballot box return? As Friedman said, we must judge all government programs on their results, not on their intentions. This, unfortunately, never happens, and thus we end up with billion dollar gun registries, HRDC fiascos, Adscam, ad infinitum…
We are witnessing the orchestrated sabotage of capitalism in the US by obama and the politics of envy. And in the end, whom does it hurt? It harms the the very people whose jobs rely upon business that is demonized by the demogogues of the left. Example: it’s not the highly-paid US senators or congressmen who lose when companies cancel their corporate jet orders: it’s Joe Sixpack working at the aircraft plant, and his family. Ditto all those working in the hospitality industry who are losing jobs because of cancelled conferences and meetings that are deemed “unnecessary” spending by the controlling US government (for TARP recipients), and perhaps by others who don’t want to appear on the radar screen. These are real jobs that add to the country’s GDP, not some make-work short-term government boondoggle that won’t be sustainable a year from now. It was Cessna that even ran a newspaper ad after negative remarks from Congress on private business plane ownership, encouraging its customers not to be discouraged by government pressure and to believe in their capital justifications for corporate jet purchases (“Timidity didn’t get you this far. Why put it in your business plan now?”) Imagine that: private industry pleading with the private industry not to be intimidated by government pressure over asset purchases… !
I tell my children quite often that the most important thing for them in life is to be in charge of their own self-destiny, and to be responsible for their own lives. That there is nothing wrong in taking any form of employment to support themselves, especially when a job is possible over receiving government aid. The time may come when they too need a bit of a hand-up from the government; when the day comes that they believe that their only salvation is to become permanent or semi-permanent wards of the state in order to meet their needs… that will be a very sad day in my life.
mhb
The
“End of Discussion”.
“The Science is Settled.”
Hmmm, interesting similarity there, eh?
MHb
You’ll pardon me if I detect a certain dissonance within your post. You begin my telling me I am immune to facts, yet my last post was concerned chiefly with correcting several of your (purposeful?) misstatements of fact.
To wit: 1) your assertion that Clinton bombed Sudan in retaliation for the Cole bombing in 2000, when he bombed Sudan in 1998, and 2) your statement that the dislike of Bush is confined only to types like me and Michael Moore, and is unshared by ‘ordinary folks’, which is clearly disproven by the polls of the last several years.
You seem to be angry that I have proven you wrong, or perhaps you are angry with the facts for proving you wrong. In any case, I think it can be seen that it is not I who am “not interested in facts”.
I’m much obliged for your psychoanalysis of me based on my posts, MHB – sorta like Frist’s diagnosis of Terry Schiavo via videotape. And with about as much integrity and insight, as well.
There are several problems with your definition of me as a ‘hater’ however.
First of all, do you see no irony that you’re posting this accusation in a thread which swells with contempt for Obama and “leftards”? Do you also not see the irony in making such an accusation on a site which is occasionally jaw-dropping in the racist crap it carries?
When I stumbled on SDA I was shocked by the level of racism I saw in the comments. This is quite apart from Kate’s posting of racist cartoons in her “Frankly My Dear…” series, and the stuff to be found on compatriot Kathy Shaidle’s site, i.e., her labelling of Arabs as “violent retards” and of Muslim children and Native Canadians as “parasites”.
I gather they believe they’re posting such stuff against the forces of political correctness. Yet surely racist remarks aren’t the only “offensive” stuff they could post. That they do so suggests they are rather in sympathy with such remarks – and are conscious that their readership may find communion in the posting of such remarks as well.
What do you call such expressions if not hateful? Are they open-hearted expressions of love and tolerance? If you are so concerned about hate, why do you not repudiate them, call them out on it when they post such trash?
The answer is that you’re not concerned at all about hate. You merely think that anyone who disagrees with you is a “hater” – or rather, you can’t win an argument based on the facts so you try to impugn your opponent’s motives instead (the ol’ BDS schtick). A standard, stale, debating trope.
A similar logic is at work in your bizarre statement that I am interested in censoring you or limiting your freedom of speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no desire to censor anyone.
In fact, I invite you to search any of my posts here to find the evidence for you to make such an assertion. It doesn’t exist – you have made up the smear out of whole cloth, because 1) you are so unused to anyone challenging your presumptions in the airtight Limbaughian bubble you live in, that if anyone does so with healthy debate you freeze and somehow believe they’re shutting you down (oh, my! debate!), and 2), it’s just another manner by which to impugn my motives, by assigning to me objectives which I don’t hold. But really, such inventions enter the realm of the fantastic. Where’s your integrity, mhb?
So, go ahead: continue to impugn the motives behind my arguments, or better yet, make stuff up out of whole cloth that’s entirely unsubstantiated by anything I’ve ever said. Call me any name in the book, but it won’t change the fact that GWB is the most hated president in US history or that the majority of the US populace believes that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake.
BTW, thanx for the chuckle you provided when you chided me for talking about Bush since he’s “now consigned to the history books” in the same thread where you brought up Clinton’s culpability in 9-11, who was president nearly a DECADE ago. Good one!