Clipping blog |
- Clearing the Browser Tabs – Tea Party Strength Friday Edition
- Barack and Hillary Sitting in a Tree. P-U-N-C-H-I-N-G!
- Moussa Koussa Busted Loussa*
| Clearing the Browser Tabs – Tea Party Strength Friday Edition Posted: 01 Apr 2011 03:10 AM PDT It’s probably no coincidence that the Politico decided to highlight a poll that shows the Tea Parties are less popular than they have been on the day before a Tea Party rally in Washington, DC (via memeorandum). After all, the MSM has been banging away at the Tea Party movement since it became evident that it would be a great deal more than the political version of a knitting circle for a handful of stay-at-home Moms and bloggers. However, all may not be as it seems. Jennifer Rubin took a closer look at the poll and found it not as decisive as the left would have us believe. More importantly, she pointed out that the Democrats in Congress have largely accepted the Tea Parties core principle of less spending, even if the two groups disagree about what “less” means. That is what victory looks like and there will be more victories to come if the Tea Parties keep talking to their friends and family and don’t pay any attention to the naysayers and sabotage artists on the left. And now, links!
 |
| Barack and Hillary Sitting in a Tree. P-U-N-C-H-I-N-G! Posted: 31 Mar 2011 07:48 PM PDT
Actually, let me up the ante somewhat (Ha!) on that last paragraph. Watching the President and Secretary of State confound each other, and the rest of us, isn’t like watching two poorly-matched partners trying to get on the same page. It’s like watching two insane people who don’t know the rules of the game and who hate each other try to make a pretense of cooperation. Here is what Secretary Clinton said about the rebels in Libya whom we might (or might not) be trying to arm.
Okay, so we might be trying to arm these people about whom we don’t know very much at all. That’s a fair reason for why we haven’t armed them already and I don’t think anyone could reasonably criticize them for taking a little time to figure out who the players are. Sure, we should have done all that before we started lobbing missiles into Libya and putting our soldiers at risk with hundreds of air sorties, but at least in this the administration is being reasonable and cautious. But wait! That’s not the whole story. The President has said something quite different from his Secretary of State. According to him, we know who some of the rebel leaders are and we’ve even met with them!
Well, okay. So could we maybe have asked the folks we’ve already vetted and with whom we’ve already met if they could use a few guns and grenades? More importantly, couldn’t we ask them to help us vet the people we don’t know about? That would seem to me an obvious way of bootstrapping our intelligence into something that resembles a professional and competent product and something that will help us take some decisive and effective action. Still, I have to ask why the President believes we do have “specific information about specific individuals” while his Secretary of State, who seems to be the administration person most clued in to the goings-on so far, doesn’t. If I didn’t know better (and believe me, my resolve is wavering on this) I’d say that our President and Secretary of State are intentionally trying to make the other look ridiculous, which is an unacceptable waste of time. Both Obama and Clinton are perfectly capable of making themselves look stupid without any help at all. Of course, that all assumes that we’re actually going to arm the rebels. According to Jamie Dupree, the administration has firmly taken a stance on both sides of the matter. Our Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice has boldly stepped forth and delivered a “maybe we will, maybe we won’t; maybe we’ll nip off for a Ray’s Hell Burger” response that isn’t likely to help our erstwhile allies very much at all. We can only hope that when the decision finally comes down, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had enough of gut-punching each other to stand behind it in unity.
 |
| Posted: 31 Mar 2011 07:21 PM PDT
It would be very nice if Koussa, whose name will go down in history with those of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Abdullah Abdullah, and Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu waza Banga among the roster of men who rose to positions of great wealth and power despite a name that you can’t actually say without chucking, started talking to some military intelligence folks as well. I’ll wager he knows most of Muammar Gadaffi’s comings and goings and could provide more than enough information to allow a team of very hard men with very accurate weapons to get in very close to the soon-to-be-late tyrant and snuff him out. That assumes, of course, that killing Gadaffi is on the to-do list of this improvised military operation. One never knows, just by listening to the President and various people around the administration, what that to-do list contains. I hope the word “win” appears on it rather prominently, but we really can’t be sure, can we? Oh well. At least we have Moussa Koussa and that’s something, right? I mean, if nothing else, the Kousster can give some rather bracing testimony at Gadaffi’s trial in The Hague in a decade or so, when all the bureaucratic wrangling has run its course. *Alternate post titles:
 |
Have you ever played Pinochle, or some other bidding card game with a bad partner? Every time you toss in a bid, your partner’s bid either undercuts you or they over bid of, God forbid, you find yourself bidding against them. Well, that’s what appears to be happening lately in the Obama administration. consider their statements on Libya the bidding process, not only to win the hearts and minds of the American people but also to convince our friends and enemies around that world that we know what we’re doing there.| You are subscribed to email updates from The Sundries Shack To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar