Via R.S. McCain:
Tag: Hillary Clinton
America tries to help Haiti, gets accused of occupation
No, I am not kidding.
I have two stories, first this story via the U.K. Telegraph:
Video:
The Story:
The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to “clarify” the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.
Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport’s control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.
“This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti,” Mr Joyandet said.
Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers.
But US commanders insisted their forces’ focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN.
The diplomatic row came amid heightened frustrations that hundreds of tons of aid was still not getting through. Charities reported violence was also worsening as desperate Haitians took matters into their own hands.
Let me get this straight —- The United States of America’s last two Presidents get together, put political differences aside and begin to raise all sorts of funds for people of Haiti and now we are the bad guys? Unreal. 🙄
And then, there’s this by Paul Goodman:
The humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti is turning out to be a classic illustration of anti-Americanism in seven easy steps.
- Calamitous events take place in a chaotic place (think Bosnia, think Somalia, think Iraq in 1991).
- The U.N and the U.S intervene.
- The civil government proves to be useless or malign, or both. The U.N isn’t up to the job. The only effective force in sight is the U.S. According to today’s Guardian, John O’Shea, the head of Goal, a medical charity, has called on the U.S to take charge of the whole operation. So has a major U.S aid agency (“which declined to be named for political reasons”).
- There are only two possible outcomes.
- The U.S takes over. If this happens, it will be accused of “creating a military occupation under the guise of humanitarian aid” and “occupying” the country outright. (Apologies, my memory’s failing me. These criticisms have been aired already. The first quote’s from President Chavez of Venezuela. The second’s from Alain Joyandet, France’s “Co-operation Minister”.)
- The U.S doesn’t take over. If this happens, it will be criticised for “not doing enough” – and isolationism.
- So either way, the U.S loses.
I’m not a fully signed-up member of the Stars-and-Stripes fan club. But there are times when I think: who’d be an American?
Sorry, I am just going to say this, and I know that some identity politics type of jackass or some minority serial complainer will bitch about it; fine, screw ’em, I just don’t give a damn anymore. What needs to happen right about now, is this — The United States of America needs to get all those supplies off of those ships and planes and get back on their ships and planes and get the hell out of Haiti now. I mean, we have ponied up for these people and other such people long enough, let them idiots deal with their problems themselves, why the hell should WE have to be the ones to go in and play captain? Not like they are going to appreciate what we do any damn way. If the U.N. does not like our forces being there, LET THE U.N. TAKE OVER THE MISSION AND LEAVE!
Yeah, I know, some liberal asshat is going to call me a racist bigot for saying it. I got two words for you: Screw You. The United States of America has wasted more money on Countries that do not like us, for whatever reason and we are doing it again; and again we are being fingered as the bad guys. Enough is Enough! It is time for the United States to say home and take care of its own problems and stop trying to help everyone who has a Earthquake or other kind of natural disaster.
It just so happens that the United States of America is going through its own sort of disaster, A man-made one, its called our Economy — and instead of us watching what we spend and keeping what we have, which is not much, when you figure that China is buying our debt, we are sending it off to a bunch of idiots, who really do not like us anyhow! No, this is not sarcasm, I am quite serious. What do we get for all this sort of charity? The above nonsense that I just quoted.
Bottom Line: I believe it is high time that the United States of America reevaluated its role abroad and got out of the rescue and charity business for Countries that really do not like us anyhow.
Others: Mudville Gazette, Fausta’s Blog, Neptunus Lex, and The Jawa Report
Stick a fork in 'em, The Clinton dynasty is over
I saw this yesterday, But I really did not feel like writing about it:
A new book is out with a highly critical but unsourced portrait of Hillary Clinton. This familiar occurrence — it’s happened too many times to count over the years — has usually been greeted with an equally familiar response: A fast and furious counterattack from the Clinton inner circle.
What’s notable about the highly publicized release of “Game Change,” however, is the virtual silence from the Clinton camp. The lack of public outrage seems to mark the sputtering end of what was once known as the Clinton political machine and underlines a fact that onetime Clinton loyalists acknowledge: The book’s primary sources about the former candidate and current secretary of state are her own former staffers and intimates.
As a result, there is no campaign of veteran Clintonites spinning the press corps and trying to pre-emptively discredit the book’s scathing depiction of Hillary Clinton as a rudderless candidate and a cheerleader for vicious tactics against eventual winner Barack Obama. There is no team of Clinton proxies going on cable television to denounce authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann as scurrilous and unworthy of belief.
This time, Bill and Hillary Clinton are virtually alone.
via Game over: The Clintons stand alone – Ben Smith – POLITICO.com.
If the things in this book are even remotely true; then you can kiss the Clinton dynasty goodbye. Much of what was said in this book has been already said; by the people that made “Hillary, The Movie.” Which the Clinton machine worked like hell to keep from being promoted, during the 2008 election. Although there are some very new juicy tidbits that have been brought up. Like Ben says in this piece, the Clinton’s and their inner circle have not tried to come out and defend Hillary or Bill. So, it does look like they are either guilty as charged or just do not feel like dealing with it.
Bottom Line: Hillary Clinton made a huge mistake in trying to run for President, her ego and elitism got the best of her. In the long run, she did more harm than good, to her and her husband’s reputation by running. This book also justifies Newt Gingridge and his Movie about Hillary.
One of the many reasons why I do not buy into the birther nonsense
Oh brother, this again?
If you thought 2010 was the future, think again. A phony new email chain letter — one of the antiquated viral sort leftover from the AOL era — is claiming that the case against President Barack Obama’s citizenship has reached the Supreme Court, based on a forged and typo-riddled Associated Press “report.”
The birther movement of angry citizens who believe President Obama was not born in the country and is thus ineligible to be president seemed to lose steam in the year since the 2008 election, but this new email spreading takes the accusations to a new level of ridiculousness based on fake news done poorly.
via Birther Chain Email Uses Fake AP Story To Question Obama’s Citizenship – Mediaite.
This is the main reason why I quit giving that birther crap any space on my blog. Because they know they are wrong. But that will not stop them. What they cannot prove; they make up. Which is horrible, but they are entitled to free speech, like everyone else — like me.
The problem is, there are well-meaning Conservatives, who actually believe this bunch of nonsense. The problem is, not many of them know this theory’s origins; which was on the White Nationalist website, Stormfront. It was then picked up operatives in the Hillary Clinton campaign, and then finally by political operatives within the Republican Party. It was quickly dumped by the Republicans and somewhat by the Hillary people. But it still festers out there. There are some, who are still angry at Obama from the Hillary camp, and some angry Republicans, who still, to this day, forward these e-mails around. It is, as Charles Johnson noted in the interview that I posted, a nuanced racial message, that basically says, “Go back to Africa, nigger!” I will be the first to admit it, there are some racists still in the ranks of Conservatives, especially in the south. Some of these people, at some point may have voted Democrat. Some not. It depends entirely on the person. This is not to say, that they all are, but there are some who hold that well-nuanced feeling towards blacks.
I think one of tragedies of the Conservative Blogosphere is that some of them, including me, got caught up into that birther nonsense. Especially when Orly Taitz started bringing out her “supposed” Birth Certificates. I was burned on that story once; it will never happen again, I can assure you of that. I went as far as to add a retraction to the story and went out of my way to slam that pathetic woman, for even trying to deceive the American people. I also slammed the owner of WorldNetDaily for giving Taitz the space to spout her nonsense too. Most of the rest that covered it, never bothered, and that to me, is a real issue. I mean, if you going to cover a story, at least have the common decency to say that it was a hoax.
Opportunistic Bovine Tripe
I think I have seen it all now…:
We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.
If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.
Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.
We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.
Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.
Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.
via Thank you former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush « HillBuzz.
It is a very interesting read; It all sounds nice and pretty — that is until you hear the reality of it. If you think for one minute that the people that wrote the above and what is over at that link are really sincere about that; I have land to sell you for extremely cheap in Texas —- in a swamp. The only motivation for this idiotic bunch of Bovine Tripe that was written here is the following; their allegiance to Hillary Clinton. HillBuzz is simply a group of Homosexual Hillary Supporters; that are a still bitter because Barack Obama kicked Shillary’s fat ass in the 2008 Primary.
So, while it may sound nice, pretty and — dare I even say it? Patriotic. (Uh, Gag, Puke) It is simply a piece written to kick dirt in the face of Barack Obama for daring to defeat Hillary Clinton. So, please, do not buy the hype on this entry. Because if it would have been Hillary that won. These guys would be still trashing Bush. In other words; Nice try guys, but not all of us in the political blogging world are that dumb to believe that you actually now love Bush. 🙄
AllahPundit gets it wrong
Man, it is pretty bad, when amateur idiots like me, have to correct the so-called “Professional Bloggers,” whatever that is. 🙄
Dude, she’s totally running — albeit certainly not in 2012 as an upstart challenger to The One. She’s too good of a soldier to do that, per her diving headfirst into the tank here to defend his Nobel win.
via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hillary: No, no, no, I’m not running again.
Dude, she was born in 1947, That makes her, unless my Math is totally off, 62 years old. There is no way that she will ever try another run at the Presidency. Here is why I think so: There is just no way that a Liberal Democrat is going to want to run that late in the stretch in their lives; at least not after what happened to “Grampy McSame” in the 2008 election. I mean, if you were a Liberal Democrat, much less a female Liberal Democrat; would you want your campaign being compared to an old Conservative Republican who thought he was entitled to be President, because of his age and Vietnam Service? Uh, I think the answer would be no.
AllahPundit and those who read his writings need to face facts; The Clinton dynasty is over, for good. The Feminist and Moderate Wing of the Democratic Party was soundly defeated by the Black Entitlement and Identity Politics of the Democratic Party. This was done by electing a President who is defined by elements of Neo-Liberalism, and by a HUGE dose of abject Socialism. While I do believe some hawkish Neo-Conservatives Conservatives would just love to see Hillary in the White House; I am afraid that era is simply over; and we are now staring down one of the most dangerous era of our times. The era of “Hope and Change” or as it known b the rest of us, the era of hyper-Socialism.
The Obama administration really needs to get over itself says The Nation?
Oh-My….. 😮 😯
I figured I would see this out of maybe, The National Review or possibly, maybe, The New Republic and definitely The Weekly Standard ——– But, the Nation? I mean that magazine is about a leftist as it gets and they are criticizing “The One” that they were all waiting for? The One who they basically turned into the Democratic Party’s personal savior and lord? I mean, this is amazing.
I do believe the Honeymoon is over and over horribly it is.
John Nichols writes over at The Nation the Following:
The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.
First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News because the network maintains a generally anti-Obama slant.
Then, an anonymous administration aide attacks bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.
These are not disconnected developments.
An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.
Nichols goes on to deliver a blistering smack down of the Obama Administration’s idea that they can try and control the media. Which is pretty shocking, considering which magazine that this is actually coming from. I guess that this should not be that great of a surprise, seeing that Barack Obama’s White House yesterday kicked the entire gay community and the Liberal Blogging community square in the jewels. Despite the best efforts to quell down the backlash, I do believe that the proverbial Genie is out of the bottle here. I do believe that President Obama is about to find out just how intolerant and hateful that the Progressive/liberal community is towards those who try and stiff them. Bill Clinton went through this; and now Obama is about to get the same treatment.
This should serve as a wake up call to anyone in the Democratic Party that is thinking of running in 2012 or in 2010 for that matter. Do not pander, do not overreach; or you will pay dearly. You would think that the Democratic Party would have learned all of this, as a whole, from the Clinton years. Sadly it seems that the Democratic Party is hellbent on making the same stupid mistakes that it made in the Clinton years. Clinton did that and the Democrats paid for it, for eight long years. George W. Bush did that to the Republican Party— and to America; and now the Republican Party is paying for that now, as we speak. Now the Obama White House is doing the same thing —— again. When will people ever learn, that you just do not make lofty promises that you do not intend to keep, that you just no not pander or overreach, because it will come back haunt you.
It is such a vicious cycle, that is repeated over and over and over… by both Political Parties. 🙄
White House is screwing the War in Afghanistan to hell
Not a big surprise, considering the President’s middle name; I mean after all, The President does not even want the words “War on Terror” used anymore.
This comes via the AP:
President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan‘s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.
The sharpened focus by Obama’s team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.
Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
McChrystal’s troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to — the general’s strong preference — as many as 40,000.
Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.
[….]
There now are no more than 100 al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. fight in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, now increasingly being defined by the Obama team as distinct from al-Qaida. While still dangerous, the Taliban is seen as an indigenous movement with almost entirely local and territorial aims, less of a threat to the U.S. than the terrorist network.
Obama’s team believes some elements in the Taliban are aligned with al-Qaida, with its transnational reach and aims of attacking the West, but probably not the majority and mostly for tactical rather than ideological reasons, the official said.
“They’re not the same type of group,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “It’s certainly not backed up by any of the intelligence.”
That leaves the primary aim in Afghanistan to deny al-Qaida any ability to regroup there as it did when the Taliban was in power before the 2001 invasion that ousted them. And this points to a smaller military increase in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on surgical strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere — essentially the approach being advocated by Biden as an alternative to the McChrystal recommendation for a fuller counterinsurgency effort inside Afghanistan.
Biden has argued for keeping the American force there around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 extra troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but significantly increasing the use of unmanned Predator drones and special forces that have been successful in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere.
[….]
Clinton has not tipped her hand as to how she is leaning in the sessions, according to aides. While she is broadly supportive of building up troop levels — although not necessarily in the numbers favored by McChrystal — she also believes the military cannot be the only focus, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to detail her views.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, long wary of a large troop presence in Afghanistan, appears to have grown more comfortable with the prospect of a moderate, middle-path increase.
Many lawmakers from Obama’s own Democratic Party do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.
Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders’ calls soon or risk failure. “Unnecessary delay could undermine our opportunity for success,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday.
So, while President Obama and Hillary Clinton are playing political chess and trying not to offend one another; our troops are dying on the battlefield. Terrific.
AllahPundit over at HotAir.com, who was in New York during the 9/11 attacks; is quite livid:
They’re looking for any way they can to avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?
[…]
In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?
I would not want to be in the United States Military right now for no amount of money in the world. Not with that idiot buffoon running the Military. The man has zero, and I do mean ZERO clue how to fight a war. I feel for our boys over there right now; because, quite frankly, they are trapped. Just like in Vietnam.
The real sick and sad part is; that the Republican and the Democrats both are taking this whole, “Whatever you decide to do boss! We’ll support you, all the way!” attitude; because none of them have the damn guts to stand up and tell this jack assed idiot to either damn lead or resign and let someone else lead for him. That is what makes me so damned angry.
Update: Video: (H/T to reader Stephanie)
As Stephanie said, this is going to be tough one. But he does need to stand up and lead and quit putting it off.
Others: Atlas Shrugs, The Long War Journal, Flopping Aces, Stop The ACLU, theblogprof, War in Context and Pajamas Media
Lies, Damned Lies and more Lies
I notice in the Blogosphere today that the Liberals are accusing Conservatives of lying about the turn out in Washington D.C.
How ironic that the Socialists are crying foul about lying; seeing that their own dear leader is quite the liar himself.
Let’s review, shall we?
My that’s quite a bit of lying.
I think his nose should be growing…
Remember this little whopper of a big lie?
…and the Kool-Aid Drinkers bought it; hook, line and sinker.
So, perhaps…. Joe Wilson; was right?
Of course, the bill was changed, after Joe Wilson called the President on it. But still, are not these other lies legit? I think they are.
Exit Question: If a Republican lied like this man has, would not he be held to a higher scrutiny? But because he is a black liberal, he skates for free? Isn’t that the honest truth?
RedState Update on Cheney Hates Bush
Jackie and Dunlap don’t think too highly of Dick Cheney for not thinking too highly of George W.