Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Everyone thinks Trump’s military parade is a dumb idea. Well, everyone in the media anyway, and sadly there is a vocal minority in the military that is attempting to lend their voices as well.

We’ve done military parades before. CNN of all places had a neat wrap up of pictures from previous military parades. While we haven’t done them for a while, that is probably due to under sizing and under-resourcing our military. The last big military parade was in 1991, when we had almost 530 ships. Only a few years later, in 1995, we were under 400, and now we are under 300. Similar downsizing happened for the other services.

(more…)

Advertisements

Watching Morning Joe today. They started with Libya and talk was all about arming the rebels and why Libya and not elsewhere. Listening to the discussion I noticed that there was something missing.

I had my doubts whenever Joe Scarborough’s op-ed, would get the play it normally does. Considering that the opening segment is repeated at 8 a.m. you would think that they would make it a point to bring up the hosts op-ed on the subject of the day first. Instead during Mika’s must read op-eds it was mentioned late as they instead talks of the anniversary of the Reagan Assassination attempt, leaving just enough time to give Joe’s piece two minutes

However Joe’s op-ed points to the phoniness of the president’s supporters on Libya, and I don’t think MSNBC wants to overplay that argument.

Speaking of op-eds here is different one from Anne Applebaum via Legal Insurrection that won’t get any play on MSNBC:

Sarkozy clearly hopes the Libyan adventure will make him popular, too. Nobody finds this surprising. At a conference in Brussels over the weekend, I watched a French participant boast of France’s leading role in the Libyan air campaign. A minute later, he heartily agreed that the war was a ploy to help Sarkozy get re-elected. The two emotions—pride in French leadership and cynicism about Sarkozy’s real motives—were not, it seems, mutually exclusive.

And of course the goal is to have this underwritten by the US while he gets the supposed electoral benefits.

Do not expect the MSM to give Anne’s take any play at all.

The US media has been playing down the connections between Al Qaeda and the Libyan Rebels for a while now, but today Byron York tackles it:

Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the “foreign invasion” — that is, the U.S. military. According to a report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, al-Hasidi says he was later captured in Pakistan, handed over to the U.S., then held in prison in Libya before being released in 2008.

In addition to fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, al-Hasidi also says he recruited about two dozen men to fight the U.S. in Iraq.

What is more amazing than those two sentences is the response of the NYT to this:

“No one seems all that frightened by him,” the New York Times wrote of al-Hasidi after a visit to Darnah in early March. Al-Hasidi, the paper reported, “praises Osama bin Laden’s ‘good points’ but denounces the 9/11 attacks on the United States.” And besides, the Times reported, al-Hasidi finds it amusing that the government of Moammar Gadhafi considers him an al Qaeda terrorist. “He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching,” the Times reported.

Whenever Afghanistan comes up on Morning Joe he repeats the mantra that there are only a few Al Qaeda present there. Apparently there are a lot more Al Qaeda in Libya and we are saving them from Gaddafi.

Now given that we are there now, and fighting we should fight to win, but it’s one thing to fight and win in Libya with Al-Qaeda at our side, it’s another thing to arm this guys:

But Sky News now understands the US is looking at a legal framework to allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels, if they can prove they need them to defend themselves from attack.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for US Ambassador Dr Susan Rice, confirmed it was a possibility.

Uncoverage is not amused:

There is good reason to believe, from many reliable sources, that they are organized by radical Islamists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Given that, how can it be that United States U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice can possibly even consider arming the rebels with our weapons?

If we are stupid enough to do this as a nation then we will deserve all we get from it.

You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.

The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.

Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.

And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.

I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.

Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”

Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!

Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.