RSS

Tag Archives: Middle East

Bush says he’s “comfortable” with his legacy?

Former President George W. Bush has said during a recent interview with the Dallas Morning News he’s comfortable with his decision-making regarding the Iraq War.

bush 12

“I’m confident the decisions were made the right way,” Bush explained. “It’s easy to forget what life was like when the decision was made.”

Actually, no it’s not; we were recovering from the 9-11 attack, troops in Afghanistan were closing in on Osama Bin Laden, our nation’s debt and deficit were nowhere near where you left them and U.S. troops hadn’t started torturing prisoners.

“I’m comfortable with what I did,” he said. “I’m comfortable with who I am.”

Well, that makes two people I suppose, you and Dick Cheney.

Bush’s legacy will be one of abject failure; he failed to keep American’s safe, ignoring intelligence reports prior to the attacks on 9-11; he failed to get Osama Bin Laden, and probably allowed him to escape into Pakistan when he invaded Iraq; he led the country off a fiscal cliff into the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression. He’s not just a failure however, he’s a delusional failure, there’s no other explanation for being “comfortable” with one of the worse presidencies in United States history.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 16, 2013 in Iraq

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Drone Strike to Kill U.S. Citizen on American Soil Legal?

Holy time warp Batman, according to news reports the United States Attorney General thinks it could use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance”; no we’re not talking about George W. Bush’s administration here, we’re talking about President Barrack Obama’s, but fortunately it has “no intention of doing so,” at least according to a letter from General Eric Holder.

predator-firing-missile4

The letter was disclosed by Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Senator Rand Paul, who had asked whether the Justice Department believed the President had legal authority to order a targeted strike against an American citizen located within the United States.

According to Holder, while the President rejected the use of military force where “well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.” Theoretically, it’d be legal for the him to order such an attack under certain circumstances, he claimed.

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001,” Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would “examine the particular facts and circumstances” if such an emergency were to arise.

On this issue the Attorney General needs his head thoroughly examined; there are no legitimate uses of drone strikes within the United States on its own citizen’s, period. There is no “theoretical” for which this would ever apply, period. Would the Attorney General also “theorize” there are legitimate times when the President would authorize the use of nuclear weapons by the government on American soil against its own?

Just as the Bush Administration was wrong on everything from failing to protect the United States against terrorists, to lying about WMDs in Iraq to approving water boarding and torturing of prisoners, so too is the Obama Administration wrong on this. Fix it Mr. President; if we’d wanted more of the same we’d have elected the other guy.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 5, 2013 in War on Terror

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Romney blames President for emboldening North Korea to build sucky missile

According to news reports, Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential aspirant Willard Mitt Romney’s trying to link North Korea’s failed rocket launch to President Obama saying the president’s efforts to appease the regime have “emboldened” Pyongyang.

Willard’s claiming President Barack Obama has “no effective response” to North Korea’s weapons program and supported a “food-aid deal” “that proved to be as naive as it was short-lived.”

“At the same time, he has cut critical U.S. missile defense programs and continues to underfund them,” Romney said. “This incompetence from the Obama Administration has emboldened the North Korean regime and undermined the security of the United States and our allies.”

Someone should point out to Willard that the vaunted North Korean inter-ballistic missile took off, broke apart, and plopped into the ocean. They’ve become so emboldened they built a missile that sucks so badly dolphins were laughing as it fell around them.

Wow, I’m underwhelmed by the level of this potential threat; additionally I need to write myself a note to cancel my application to the North Korean Space Program.

Willard’s expansive foreign policy experience – which consists of how many Swiss skiers can fit into a minivan – is clearly showing; and isn’t it grand he keeps parading it out for all to see?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 13, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Limbaugh backed Kony

To demonstrate how badly Rush Limbaugh’s infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) here’s a little transcript of Limbaugh actually supporting war criminal Joseph Kony.

From Limbaugh’s 14 Oct 11 broadcast: “Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians.  They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill.

“So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and — (interruption) no, I’m not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it.  Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians?  Wouldn’t you say that we are?  I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn’t just Obama that supported that.  It was our — the conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they’ve done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place.  Now they’re criticizing it.

“Lord’s Resistance Army objectives.  I have them here. “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.” Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following:  ‘To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.’ Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.”

This demonstrates two things:

First, Limbaugh hates the President so much he’s willing to support a murdering war criminal in order to criticize him.

Second, it demonstrates quite clearly Limbaugh’s real ignorance of what’s going on in the world.

Rush is a hack, he makes stuff up in order to win ratings, and he lies habitually about the President due to his chronic ODS.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2012 in Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

GOTP hopefuls complain but no plans on Libya

Isn’t it amazing how the Bungling Brothers Three Ring Circus, also known as the GOTP hopeful candidates for the 2012 nomination are all being very quick to criticize the President’s handling of the U.N. mandated no-fly zone in Libya, but not one of them has come forward with how they would have handled it. Well, except for Newt, who was for a no-fly zone before he was opposed to one?

And speaking of the Newt, he’s our first performer  in the center ring flip flopping across the ring, “You have a spectator in chief, not a commander in chief,” the Newt grumbled, one assumes meaning he’s for the no fly zone now? Or does he want boots on the ground this week?

At first Newtee very vocally demanded a no-fly zone after the President Obama said Gadhafi needed to be ousted, but then when the President began moving forward and the Newtster saw it was being billed as “humanitarian mission” he quickly decided he wanted nothing to do with that. He also first said in one interview that air strikes would oust Gadhafi and then said jets would not be able to end his rule now that fighting had gone into the cities. Newt’s effectively become the circus’ Push Me Pull You candidate.

Next to perform is Haley Barbour the Governor of Mississippi who is calling the President’s response to the situation “dithering.”

Barbour told a Jackson, Miss., radio station: “we haven’t provided leadership in this administration. In fact, the Obama administration’s position has been to say, ‘You know, we’re just one of the boys. We’re not going to try to be the leader.'”

Yeah, too bad Haley conveniently ignored the fact United States forces led the air strikes over Libya under the auspices of a United Nations resolution authorizing force in the interest of preventing a humanitarian crisis. He offered no opinion on an appropriate U.S. response, just the fact that this response lacked any leadership, as compared to what? The good old days of Sheriff Bush and his posse telling Bin Laden he could run that he couldn’t hide? Newsflash! He’s still out there!

Our juggling act will be performed by the great health care reformist himself, the former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who said the President has been “tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.”

Romney says he supports the mission in Libya. He’s just not a fan of the President who started it or his approach to international affairs. So, he’s saying it’s the right mission, just the wrong guy going to get the credit? He didn’t detail what the Libya policy would be under a Romney administration.

“Thus far, the president has been unable to construct a foreign policy, any foreign policy,” Romney told Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. “I think it’s fair to ask, you know, what is it that explains the absence of any discernible foreign policy from the president of the United States?”

You’re kidding right Mitt? No foreign policy from President Obama?

How about the fact the President has restored strained alliances and friendships around the world? President Obama’s call for partnership, respect for international rules on prisoners, and acceptance of the responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from the isolated and lonely superpower of Bush/Cheney often seen as a threat to international order back into a leader in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The President is pulling our troops out of the nightmare of Iraq, and plans to do the same for our troops in Afghanistan.

No circus would be complete with some Paws, and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said President Obama erred by not forcing a no-fly zone more quickly.

“The rebels at that time were on the verge of overthrowing Gadhafi. They had the momentum. They were in position to do it,” Pawlenty told FOX PAC. He said President Obama left the rebels without backup and Gadhafi ready to squelch them. But he didn’t say what he would do differently now. So, if we had President Pawlenty he would have gone it alone to support the rebel cause? Pawlenty isn’t entirely wrong in his assessment. Things could’ve and should’ve moved much quicker. But then what?

And our last performer today is the 2008 GOTP vice presidential nominee and former Alaska governor, Palin the Jungle Girl, who whined, “We’ve received different messages from our president and from his advisers as to what it is that we are doing there and what the mission is.”

And how would Palin have handled the situation, if – “gulp” – we had President Palin? She offered her usual snarky complaints with no plan attached, “certainly there would have been more decisiveness.” So, she would have decisively done what? At some point she will probably release a You tube video decrying how she’s the real victim of the conflict in Libya.

Aside from the whining and complaints, notice anything missing ? Not one of these so-called candidates had anything of substance to say. Not one has offered anything of depth. Not one has said how things would be different if they were the King of the Forest. Well, “there would have been more decisiveness”. No plans, nothing.

The most amusing part of these latest attacks from the GOTP misfits is that they’re coming while U.S. forces are enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya to protect rebels trying to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi – just as the GOTP demanded. Remember that, just as the GOTP demanded.

These “candidates” are all sort of saying President Obama is too slow and too reliant on international approval from the Arab League, the United Nations and NATO. Yes sports fans, what we really need is a President who tells the rest of the world to go jump in a lake while we preemptively invade whomever we darn well please, because that worked so well for the United States during the Bush/Cheney years.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 26, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Allies finally move in Libya?

Finally the United Nations, Great Britain, France and the United States have pulled their collective heads out of their fourth points of contact and have launched forces into action against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi; as the attacks began, President Obama declared from Brazil that the “people of Libya must be protected.”

“In the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians, our coalition is prepared to act and act with urgency,” Obama said at a news conference in Brazil’s presidential palace following meetings with the newly elected President Dilma Rousseff.

Of course it’s only taken how long to decide to act with “urgency” Mr. President? You may have decided to move with too little, too late. Where were the United States, Great Britain and France when the revolution was on the very brink of toppling Qaddafi? It’s understood that the Bush/Cheney attitude of bomb and invade, shock and awe, and ask questions later was over kill, but there are times when America needs to use its strength to help those who are fighting to overthrow despots. There are few – if any – members of our military who wouldn’t jump at the chance to help people legitimately fighting for their liberties, as opposed to being used as tools imposing freedom by Presidential whim and edict.

Minutes before he began speaking, officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world meeting in Paris announced immediate military action to protect civilians amid combat between Qaddafi’s forces and rebel fighters. French warplanes were targeting Qaddafi’s forces. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren’t participating in the initial French air missions.

France, Britain and the United States had warned Qaddafi on Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.

How nice it is to have our forces be part of legitimately enforcing a U.N. resolution instead of pretending that was the reason for our involvement. This time around, our men and women will know they’re fighting with their allies as the enforcement arm of the U.N. and not pretending to enforce U.N. sanctions or simply using the United Nations as an excuse to cover a questionable invasion.

United States involvement at this point is to be limited – according to Administration officials – and its primary objectives will be to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses; however, things could intensify depending on the response and the U.S. is prepared to launch additional attacks in support of allied forces.

“This is a broad international effort,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said from Paris. “The world will not sit idly by while more innocent civilians are killed. The United States will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce” the resolution.

The President has already ruled out sending in U.S. ground troops. But the U.S. has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships. One U.S. official said the Navy was planning a sea-launched missile attack from the Mediterranean against elements of Libya’s coastal air defenses.

And this is precisely how the U.S. should be conducting itself. America never needed to send ground forces into Iraq, and could have easily forced Hussein to yield through multiple, well targeted air strikes, and the use of ground forces to take him out could have been small in scope and supported from the air (i.e. Special Forces, Rangers, SAS, etc.). There was no need then, and there is no need now, to put boots on the ground, and the rebels in Libya have not asked for them. They want air cover, and the allies can certainly supply that.

 

Tags: , ,