Help! I’ve Fallen Into a Rabbit Hole and I Can’t Get Up!

The New York Obama-Times suddenly argues that withdrawing from a conflict (that isn’t really one, per Ogabelini, since our drone strikes don’t equate to “hostilities” or some such liberal horse manure) is detrimental to our nation’s credibility. No, we’re not shitting you:

One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.

They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow.

Gee… We wonder why on earth the editorial board at the New York Premature Surrender Times needed 8 years of caterwauling about “needless wars” before they came to this realization.

No, we don’t. All it took was for their Anointed Lightworker to ascend to the throne instead of that evil, horrid Bush. Then suddenly the New York Pravda was perfectly OK with any act of war of ours, no matter how flimsy and inconsistent the justification, and to question the Administration is just downright… UNPATRIOTIC!

Apparently it’s OK to question somebody’s patriotism after all, according to the New York Double Standard, as long as that somebody has the “wrong” political opinions.

They then went on to babble about “national security”, but decided that the hypocrisy and sheer lunacy of claiming that our national security is the slightest at risk here was too much, even for Pravda on the Hudson, so they scrubbed that out of the online version, but the original read like this:

We also believe Congress has an important role to play in this debate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to vote on the Kerry-McCain measure next week. The majority leader, Harry Reid, has said he has the votes in the Senate. Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the United States following through on its national security commitments.

Our much vaunted “national security commitments” to keep thugs from shooting their own civilians. Unless said thugs are named Ahmadinnerjacket or Assad, of course. We’ll just “bear witness” to those slaughters.


UPDATE: The Hildebeest is now questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with Ogabelini too:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Fortunately, we already have the perfect retort for that one:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Nicely put, Hildebeest.

It’s fun watching liberal fascist idiots arguing with themselves. Schizophrenia, it’s what’s for breakfast!

(H/t Hot Air).


  1. 1
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Cash for Pumpers
    By Jeffrey Folks
    On Thursday the President announced that he would release 30 million barrels of oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The immediate effect on world markets was to knock the oil price down by over $4 a barrel. But many experts question the wisdom — and the timing — of the move.

    Clearly, the timing of the withdrawal was politically motivated. Any reduction in the price of gas at the pump is going to be popular, especially with Obama’s political base and with independents who are key to his reelection. The problem is that, like every other form of stimulus attempted by this administration, the SPR drawdown will have only temporary results. And in the long term, it will almost certainly drive prices up.

    Global demand for oil is now 89.3 million barrels per day and rising nearly 2% annually, according to the IEA. Obama’s withdrawal of 30 million barrels over the next month, adding about 1% to current supply, will have little effect on global market prices over time. What it will do is to inject further uncertainty in the oil market, causing producers to think twice before committing new investment to new drilling. Oil companies are already facing opposition by the EPA, the Interior Department, the State Department, and other federal agencies. Under Obama, political barriers to new exploration are at an all-time high. Now these companies, which are eager to expand production, are faced with more interference by the Obama administration.

    Before committing another $20 billion to energy exploration and development, America’s oil companies are going to want to know whether they can expect a decent return on their investment. What the President has done is signal his willingness to undercut their plans if it is politically expedient to do so.

    Of course, that’s one side of Obama that we have seen before. He was willing to throw the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his closest mentor and godfather, under the bus when it was necessary to do so. He was willing to sack his dear friend Van Jones at the point when Jones’s public comments became too outrageous even for this administration. He sent Larry Summers packing when it became apparent that the economy was not turning around as hoped. Obama’s own half-brother has been huddling in an African hut for years while the President, apparently for political reasons, pretends that he does not exist. (Could it be that the American people might feel some qualms about polygamy within the Obama household, if such were brought to their attention?) There seems to be no one, friend or family, that the President is unwilling to abandon for the sake of political gain.

    Worse yet, there is not action affecting the country that the President is unwilling to undertake if he thinks it will aid him politically. The nation’s security, the economy, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare — all are expendable if necessary to Obama’s reelection.

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is meant to be tapped only in the case of emergencies, is a case in point. The reserve plays a crucial role in America’s national security. It is meant to be tapped only in the event of war or some other true emergency. Clearly, the fact that Obama’s polling numbers are in the dumps does not constitute a national emergency. But the fact that Obama is willing to tap the SPR at this time reveals something fundamentally wrong about his thinking. In Obama’s mind, bad polling numbers apparently do constitute an emergency — an emergency far more serious, or so he believes, than a war or economic crisis in which the well-being of the American people is at risk.

    If it were the well-being of the people that mattered most, Obama would have opened up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago, and not just with a token number of permit approvals. If he were interested in the long-term energy security of the American people, Obama would be promoting exploration in the arctic and offshore Alaska and offshore the continental U.S. But by releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the SPR, he is merely injecting uncertainty into the markets and causing companies to reconsider plans for new investment.

    Clearly, the President’s directive is pure politics, intended to placate a restive electorate by temporally driving down the price of oil. And just as cash for clunkers did nothing to increase automobile sales — it merely drew sales forward by a few months, increasing sales in the summer while reducing them in the fall — cash for pumpers will do nothing to lower the long-term cost of energy.

    Removing over 4% of oil from the SPR, however, is serious business. If Obama finds it politically expedient to continue drawing down our reserves, as he threatens to do, the country could be in desperate straits in the event of a true emergency. It is not difficult to imagine a war in the Middle East closing down the Strait of Hormuz, and such a war could break out at any time. The SPR is designed to provide a buffer of oil supplies in the event of such an emergency. Empting the petroleum reserve for political purposes is a dreadfully irresponsible act on the part of this or any president.

    Once again, Obama has put political expediency above national security. He is gambling that a true emergency will not present itself right away, but emergencies do not announce themselves in advance, and presidents should not gamble with the nation’s security. Reducing the nation’s reserves of petroleum places the country in a vulnerable position relative to those who wish us ill, and especially in relation to major oil-producers such as Iran and Venezuela. Do not think for a minute that Obama’s politically expedient move was not noted in Teheran or Caracas. Without a fully stocked Strategic Petroleum Reserve, America is at risk of political blackmail, or worse.

    Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture.

  2. 2

    I initially supported military action in Libya to aid the rebels, provided a few key components were in place.

    1. We were in it full court press. No limited air campaign, no “end dates”. Ground force commitment and total victory, that being defined as the removal of Khadafi and the establishment of a western-friendly democracy. Part of the overall strategy of the Long War of spreading pro-western democracy in the Muslim world.

    2. We knew who we were aiding. If the rebels were pro-western players known to our intelligence agencies, 100% assistance. If not, if they were Islamists or Al Quada, then let the Colonel with the funny name and funnier hair and fashion sense slaughter them.

    3. The action was American lead. No subordination to the U.N. or NATO. (BTW, how the fuck is NATO involved in this? IIRC the treaty obligation of member states is to come to the aid of any member nation attacked by another force. What member nation was attacked here?)

    Sadly, none of those have been met. Now to make the whole cluster fuck even worse, it is now blatantly illegal. The War Powers Act allows 60 days of combat operations without Congressional authorization. It was designed to give the President the authority and flexibility needed to respond to rapidly evolving events in the post WWII world. 60 days was plenty of time to seek the needed Congressional authorization. Ogabe and his regime have blatantly ignored the provisions of this act, and the “Constitutional scholar” has completely usurped the war making power vested in the Congress under the Constitution. For once the left has a real “illegal war” to harp and bleat over. The crickets are deafening.

    I’m pretty sure that this type of blatant, unconstitutional power play would fully meet the Founders’ definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, if we still cared about such quaint notions as the rule of law. Ya think the ruling class understand the punishments, both mild and severe, for treason? Or are they, through their elite status, immune to such petty and trivial considerations as the Constitution?

  3. 3
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    It’s fun watching liberal fascist idiots arguing with themselves. Schizophrenia, it’s what’s for breakfast!

    I have to repestfully disagree. These are the traitors that are either composed of Marxists with their America destroying masturbatory policies or “somewhere a village is missing their idiots” (a majority being composed of both) that are running this once beautiful country over the cliff.

    It’s not funny…it was funny three years ago. Now it’s simply a terrifying nightmare that is real and is only going to get worse.

    If America thinks we’re going have a free and fair election (or even have one at all) is a fucking moron. Just like in poker they’re all in and their not going to give up now, no matter how many millions have to be murdered in the coming purges are going to stop them from their Utopian dreams.

    I quote at length Viktor Suvorov’s book Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces

    In order to grasp the history behind spetsnaz it is useful to cast our minds back to the British Parliament in the time of Henry VIII. In 1516 a Member of the Parliament, Thomas More, published an excellent book entitled Utopia. In it he showed, simply and persuasively, that it was very easy to create a society in which universal justice reigned, but that the consequences of doing so would be terrible. More describes a society in which there is no private property and in which everything is controlled by the state. The state of Utopia is completely isolated from the outside world, as completely as the bureaucratic class rules the population. The supreme ruler is installed for his lifetime. The country itself, once a peninsula, has after monumental efforts on the part of the population and the army to build a deep canal dividing it from the rest of the world, become an island. Slavery has been introduced, but the rest of the population live no better than slaves. People do not have their own homes, with the result that anybody can at any time go into any home he wishes, a system which is worse even than the regulations in the Soviet Army today, in which the barracks of each company are open only to soldiers of that company.

    In fact the system in Utopia begins to look more like that in a Soviet concentration camp. In Utopia, of course, it is laid down when people are to rise (at four o’clock in the morning), when they are to go to bed and how many minutes’ rest they may have. Every day starts with public lectures. People must travel on a group passport, signed by the Mayor, and if they are caught without a passport outside their own district they are severely punished as deserters. Everybody keeps a close watch on his neighbour: `Everyone has his eye on you.’

    With fine English humour Thomas More describes the ways in which Utopia wages war. The whole population of Utopia, men and women, are trained to fight. Utopia wages only just wars in self-defence and, of course, for the liberation of other peoples. The people of Utopia consider it their right and their duty to establish a similarly just regime in neighbouring countries. Many of the surrounding countries have already been liberated and are now ruled, not by local leaders, but by administators from Utopia. The liberation of the other peoples is carried out in the name of humanism. But Thomas More does not explain to us what this `humanism’ is. Utopia’s allies, in receipt of military aid from her, turn the populations of the neighbouring states into slaves.

    Utopia provokes conflicts and contradictions in the countries which have not yet been liberated. If someone in such a country speaks out in favour of capitulating to Utopia he can expect a big reward later. But anyone who calls upon the people to fight Utopia can expect only slavery or death, with his property split up and distributed to those who capitulate and collaborate.

    On the outbreak of war Utopia’s agents in the enemy country post up in prominent places announcements concerning the reward to be paid to anyone killing the king. It is a tremendous sum of money. There is also a list of other people for whose murder large sums of money will be paid.

    Anybody still think it’s a joke?

  4. 4


    Can’t post in Cyrillic, converts all characters to ??? marks.

    Can’t change website on my profile from dot com to dot us. In fact, can’t even DELETE website from my profile.

  5. 5

    Misha! Vodki, zakuski i obshchenie sleduyushchii? pyatnitsu vecherom, nashe mesto? (Phonetic, can’t post proper Russian).

  6. 6

    Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow


    And this would be bad…how?

    The time is long overdue that we cast aside our role as the world’s policeman. Let’s solve the problems at home, and then, MAYBE, we can start thinking about solving other people’s problems. The very first drop of JP4 that was expended on the Libya fiasco was a mistake. We have bigger issues that actually affect us.

    I’m merciless. In MY US budget, there is no foreign aid. You guys got problems? Tough. So do we. I can’t see a sudden influx of money from Bangladesh to save family farmers in Kansas, or even tornado relief coming in from China. I don’t see the Germans or the French stepping up to the plate, either.

    The US currently spends more on foreign aid than the defense budget of many small countries combined.

    Got troubles in Libya? Got smallpox in Uganda? Tsunami crashed your nuke plant? Sucks to be you.

    Don’t like your leadership? Do something about it. Stake your claim in a decisive way, and then we’ll talk. Maybe.

    What’s that, you want US dollars?

    What are you offering in return?

  7. 7
    FrJim, Imperial Chaplain growls and barks:

    This is a complex issue.

    On the one hand, America’s strategic goals in this military project seem vague and uncertain. Sun Tzu said to only fight when there is something to be gained. What is at stake here for our long-term foreign policy? Again, this is beyond fuzzy to me.

    But pulling money away from Americans fighting in obedience to the Commander-In-Chief’s orders seems inappropriate. While Statists seem quite willing to play politics with our fighting women and men, real Patriots cannot.

    Elections have consequences. Sadly, this is one of them.

    Said differently, we can thank the 52% that chose our current leadership team. Even more depressing: our service members now pay the price.

  8. 8
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    Misha! Vodki, zakuski i obshchenie sleduyushchii? pyatnitsu vecherom, nashe mesto?

    Pyatnitsa tridtsat pervovo iyunya?

    Nye znayu. Imeyu nemnogo avtomobilnoy nepriyatnosti.

  9. 9

    But pulling money away from Americans fighting in obedience to the Commander-In-Chief’s orders seems inappropriate.

    Don’t defund ’em.

    Bring ’em home from a job they never should have been sent on in the first place.

  10. 10
    LC Sir Rurik, K.o.E. growls and barks:

    I do not understand how this current fight amongs the Islamists differs from intervening in behalf of the Vice Lords against the Gangster Disciples. I do not believe the rebels intend by freedom what we might understand. Will we bext send arms to Cali to aid them against Medillin? Oh wait. We’re doin’ that already.

    Hiilldy, what ever happened to “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”?
    I think this is all about aiding the serious Islamists against an old style dictator, whose Islam was merely cooincidental. Remember, Qaddaffy Duck came to power in 1969, before the Islamic revival took place. He is more akin to Nasser, Saddam, and Halfass Ol’-Asshat, than to Dinnerjacket, and as such its time for him to go.

    And the Queen of Spades says off with his head while nibbling french fries.

    And it is all about the fun of rubbing the military’s nose in it by making them obey orders and fight a kinetic action they all know to be against everyone else’s best judgment.

  11. 11
    Southern Libertarian growls and barks:

    This is merely more proof that hypocrisy exists on both sides of the aisle. It’s all well and good when it’s your guy doing it but god forbid the other party tries the same tactics.

    I’m tired of war. We have been at war for almost 10 years now with no foreseeable end in sight. As I prep for what is going to be my 3rd combat tour I pray this will be the last one. Fat chance of that happening though.

  12. 12

    Pyatnitsa tridtsat pervovo iyunya?

    Nye znayu. Imeyu nemnogo avtomobilnoy nepriyatnosti.

    Pozvonite nam !

  13. 13
    LC Trooper THX1138, Imperial Gadget Geek growls and barks:

    I read St. Thomas More’s “Utopia”. As most do, I found it to be a humorous look at collectivism, centuries ahead of its time. What worries me is that he wrote it in such a deadpan, British sense of humor, that I see a lot of people (<0's more overeducated disciples among them) looking at it and saying, "Hey, that might work…"

  14. 14
    LC Draco growls and barks:

    @Sir Crunchie

    I agree and had the same thoughts and conditions. Since the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be supporting the rebels, we are basically fucked!!

    And why not supporting Chad? (Chad has supported us!! Operation Mount Hope III! )They have had issues with Libya as long as I can remember! And why not go and get involved in Darfur? Pick and choose is this administration’s approach. Then when they realize they have no clue about the history, ideologies, tribal associations, etc…”Whoops, we’ll just step back and watch!”

    And if any fucker ever questions my patriotism, they better have a good dental plan. I have bled, lost body parts (albeit little ones) and have permanent bodily damage fighting for for this country and the Constitution.