Blog powered by Typepad

« My holiday, and therefore yours, too, is imminent | Main | Bravo, Mary Riddell, but you're wrong »

Saturday, 10 May 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I hope Mr Gowdy eviscerates the bastards. The ultimate act of cowardice and incompetence is to leave your troops in the shit when you have the firepower to sort out those trying to do them harm.

I guess we'll see.

By the way David did you catch Howdy Gowdy schmoozing up Nancy Grace's panties on CNN before he managed his current position?

True he always kept to combed hair but with Nancy? I'll try really er, hard to get the vid from before when he was simply known as "Howdy Gowdy."

Oh wait David, except for the Geography you already posted Howdy Gowdy on CNN:

This then maybe,

& really David, USA History is ripe, er, rife with the same stuff:

& it gets even easier with Wiki.

As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, a half-hour later ...

& a bit earlier actually - but it's "difficult" these days to find a link that works - Malcolm actually had one here but the author (it would appear prefer nobody can access it:

Unfortunately for former Prosecutor McCarthy I thought it so good an argument (at the time) against Obama doing what John McCain, Lindsey Graham and that Lieberman feller was arguing Obummer "ought to do" - I copied it in full - I know David, you prefer "conversational" but McCarthy today gives one impression whereas earlier it was more, oh, general I suppose. Just skip down to the next underline:

March 2nd 2011
Andrew McCarthy – National Review

‘The relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now, and I think tonight does mark a new phase,” said Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s secretary of state was taking time out from inventing the 70 percent of Palestinians who just want to live side-by-side in peace with the Zionist entity in order to reinvent Moammar Qaddafi.

It was September 2008, and the Freedom Agenda was in full swing, with a few hiccups: Hamas taking over Gaza, Hezbollah strangling what passed for the government of Lebanon, al-Qaeda reassembling in Pakistan, the Taliban resurging in Afghanistan, and, in Iraq, the usual: Shiites killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shiites, and everyone killing Americans when they weren’t busy chasing any remaining non-Muslims out of the country. What better time to see Colonel Qaddafi, heretofore a barbaric mass-murderer, as the proverbial leopard who’d changed his spots?

In reality, it had been the swift military rout of Saddam Hussein that induced Qaddafi to renounce (or claim to renounce) his ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction in late 2003. But once the hard-power promise of the Bush Doctrine gave way to the belief that thugs could be democratized into submission, the wily old terrorist found a system he could game. And game it he did.

I didn’t buy the remaking of Qaddafi then, and I don’t buy the remaking of Libya now. That puts me among a breed that, if news accounts are to be believed, is increasingly rare: I don’t care about the Libyan people — I’m sorry, I mean the “brave Libyan freedom fighters.”

Yes, yes, I know: We are not supposed to look at Libyans now as they appeared the last time we took notice: a cheering throng greeting Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie terrorist, whom the Obama administration was cajoled into ignoring when the Brits orchestrated his release from jail to appease our spot-shorn leopard. Nor are we supposed to register that Qaddafi’s main opponents in this 97 percent Muslim country are Islamists who have about as much use for us as they do for Colonel Crazy.

No, this is to be the desperately wished-for Arab awakening, so we are to take the Libyans as noble secularists who just want to throw off the yoke of tyranny and establish democracy (and never you mind the sharia).

Eager to get with the program, newspapers, blogs, and television reports tell us that Qaddafi has been America’s incorrigible enemy for 30 years.

The problem is, if your memory actually goes back more than ten minutes, you may recall that the same media outlets only recently pronounced Qaddafi downright corrigible.
And why not? After all, that was how the State Department saw it. As if history had never really happened, we agreed to let the strongman receive an ebullient Secretary Rice (“my darling black African woman,” as Qaddafi called her) in the very Bab al-Azizia compound that President Reagan had ordered bombed in retaliation for Libya’s 1986 terrorist attack on a Berlin disco. Qaddafi had targeted American servicemen and managed to kill two of them while maiming hundreds of other victims.

Had Qaddafi really changed in the ensuing 22 years? He arrived at the 2008 love fest arrayed in one of his lunatic costumes. The room, a smitten Associated Press reported, was “redolent of incense.” The dictator couldn’t gush enough over “Leezza,” being especially “proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders,” as he had told al-Jazeera in a 2007 interview.

That is, nothing had changed. Qaddafi was the same old “mad dog of the Middle East,” the title President Reagan aptly bestowed on him in 1986 — even before the strongman ordered the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103, murdering 259 people onboard (including 189 Americans) and killing eleven more when the wreckage landed on the small Scottish town of Lockerbie.

In 2008, just as in 1988, Qaddafi was the same dyed-in-the-wool terrorist he is today, the kind with whom the Bush administration occasionally professed to know you don’t negotiate. The kind you regard as an enemy, not a rehabilitation project.

But when you are determined to see policy success rather than reality, everything is made to look different. By 2008, the Bush Doctrine was no longer about bludgeoning terrorists into submission and squeezing their state sponsors until they said “Uncle.”

That was so retro, so 2001. Now, the goal was to show real political progress in the Middle East. So Colonel Crazy wasn’t a terrorist anymore. He was rebranded an ally in the War on Terror.

And hey, enemy schmenemy: “I’ve said many times,” Secretary Rice declaimed, “the United States . . . doesn’t have any permanent enemies.” The Libyans — just like us, according to Rice — had “learned the lessons of the past.” That’s why we were now so ready to “talk about the importance of moving forward.”

And did Qaddafi ever know how to move forward, to bank on our bottomless capacity to overpay for dubious concessions. In 2004, President Bush began removing sanctions and unfreezing assets. By 2006, diplomatic relations were restored and the regime — for which terrorism and a hammerlock on national oil riches were the keys to remaining in power — was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Announcing these developments, in exchange for which the U.S. demanded exactly nothing in the way of authentic democratic reform, the State Department lauded “Libya’s continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism” and its “excellent cooperation” against the “global threat faced by the civilized world.” Oh, sure, Qaddafi’s regime was still, shall we say, “restrictive” — the gentle term State used in asking Congress to open the foreign-aid spigot. But soon, with all the Western guidance Qaddafi was anxiously soaking up, Libya would be a “developing” country. After that, the sky was the limit, and no need to spoil the mood by mentioning the alarming number of Libyans who were crossing Syria to wage jihad against American troops in Iraq.

Finally, to further grease the wheels for Secretary Rice’s historic visit with our new ally, the administration agreed to pay Libya reparations. Yes, you read that correctly. This was for what Qaddafi claimed were damages sustained in Reagan’s 1986 bombing campaign. Drawing a moral equivalence between (a) the comeuppance served up by the United States for a savage attack on our troops and (b) Qaddafi’s mass-murder of innocents in a plane bombing, David Welch, the State Department’s assistant secretary for near-east affairs, cooed that now “each country’s citizens can receive fair compensation for past incidents.” Incidents? Yes, that’s what historic atrocities become when we pretend our enemies are our friends.

But now the enemy who became a friend has become an enemy again. Of course, he never changed — we did. He just used the largesse and support we provided him to tighten his grip on the throne. Are you surprised?

Evidently, the State Department is. Secretary Rice’s successor, Hillary Clinton, suddenly wants Qaddafi gone yesterday. That’s after only weeks of rampage during which her boss, President Obama, couldn’t bring himself to utter a negative word about Qaddafi. In retrospect, maybe the president has decided that the lack of shovel-ready projects was not a good reason for him to use more U.S. taxpayer funds to stimulate “charities” run by the Qaddafi family.

In any event, guess who else wants Qaddafi gone tomorrow? None other than Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s sharia compass, who is still tingling from his recent, triumphant return to Egypt, right across the border from Eastern Libya, where Qaddafi’s fiercest opposition just happens to be. He did make time, though, to issue a fatwa last week calling for the Libyan despot’s assassination.

Not to worry, though. We have it on good authority (the U.S. government) that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization, with a real passion for democracy. Perhaps if one of the Libyan secularists is moved to carry out the fatwa — which, of course, should be understood as a strictly secular edict — Secretary Clinton could find a new friend of America in Sheikh Qaradawi. They say Bab al-Azizia is lovely this time of year.

It's different now I guess since it's obviously different.

Yeah yeah I know David, "conversational" but the Kraut should know better than mess with the Chief of Archives.

I'm not sure that harking back to the Beirut bombings is relevant, JK. Yes, there is a question over the lack of security at the Benghazi consulate but the silly woman who wrote The New Yorker piece says proudly that four State Dept officials were dismissed is wrong. They were simply shuffled sideways and the wretched woman with main responsibility has since been promoted!

As far as I recall, no-one in Reagan's administration attempted to put out a false cover story in order to avoid criticism of their own actions - not least because for once the pols in Washington were not to blame, it was the fault of lax security by the military *on the ground*!

And who is "Nancy Grace", and is it worth trying 'to schmooze up her panties'?

I take it then David all Obama need say is something along the lines of, “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

No. Don't bother thinking anything much about Nancy Grace. Here in Arkansas we generally think of her as "not fitted to be seen slurpin' even somebody else's crowder peas."

That David, in my Arkanesian bestest approximation of ya'lls genteel British means generally speaking, while she may look good to a blind Oirishman in a pinch he'd be better advised to seek a date temporary where at least there's a chance in the morning he can find what he'd been better doing the evening before.

Slumming in Mogadishu or some otherwise refined place.

Sorry, JK, but I'm not sure what you mean by “Anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”?

All that Obama need have said is that his intel told him that this was a terrorist attack - end of! Instead he lied, and lied again. And as (nearly) always, it's the cover up that gets 'em in the end!

Nancy dis Grace

David, when Piers Morgan advances into dementia, and conducts his show with spittle drooling down his chin, you will have Nancy Grace.

Oh my Gaaaaard! That is an X-certicate description, Dom!

"Having...a kitchen redone" was Reagan's illustration of how construction projects grow faster than the construction. People were asking why the security measures at the American Embassy compound in Beirut had not been completed, allowing a huge truck bomb to be driven inside the gates, where the explosives were detonated near the Marine barracks. The little brother of a coworker of mine was killed in that bombing, so it is more personal to me than some other bits and bobs of political krep. Sad to say, but true, government construction projects do often move at government speed, unless and until motivated by flying bomb debris. (Or,is it really debris before it lands?)

JK may be able to enlighten us about Tom Cotten, Representative from Southwestern Arkansas, but watch the video of his minute or so, regarding the Democraps complaint that the Benghazi investigation is "political." We in neighboring Texas are very well impressed.

Things political are done in symbols. The Left has its "The mean old Republican Trolls just won't let the 'Sweet Little Billy Goats Gruff' cross that bridge without one of the three SWLBGG being eaten." Republicans go for random samples, if they believe that these will gain traction and move the needle in the Useful Idiots' minds. So, Benghazi is held up as an example, to make concrete, that the Obamanoids are destroying American projected power, acting on their Marxist beliefs that the US is a tributary, not a Commercial, empire, that we use our military to take the world's resources. That the facts, and even very simple arithmetic, do not support such beliefs, does not sink into their heads, or, perhaps sink is the more mot juste than it first appears to be. Reality sinks into the miasma of their minds, never to be seen again.

Thing is, Michael, that I don't recall the Reagan admin trying to make up stories about the catastrophe in the way the Obama regime has over Benghazi.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a harsh critic of the Obama administration over its handling of the Benghazi attacks, met with Stevens during a July 2012 visit to Libya, just two months before Stevens’ death. A month earlier, unknown attackers in Benghazi had attempted to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

Yet McCain made no mention publicly of the deteriorating security situation _ the British had closed their consulate in Benghazi in response to the attack _ and instead issued a news release that effusively praised the progress Libya was making toward democracy.

Asked this week about his visit with Stevens, McCain said that the ambassador had discussed the security situation with him. Pressed for details, McCain said he could not remember the specifics of the conversation. Asked whether he brought any security concerns to the attention of his fellow members of Congress or officials at the State Department when he returned from Libya, McCain said he could not recall.


The chairman of the new House select committee has a mixed record on Libya. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., voted for the resolution that allowed for U.S. intervention. But weeks later, he supported one intended to prevent the U.S. from providing the kind of military presence that some argue was needed to prevent Libya’s post-Gadhafi decline into chaos. That resolution read in part: “The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.”

Thanks, JK, but the people in the dock, or at least, the people who should be in the dock are Obama, 'HillBilly' and their apparatchiks. If Gowdy plays this right over the next 12 - 18 months months it should become a running sore to the Dems and to 'HillBilly'.

The comments to this entry are closed.