Beldar Is Back
He has been posting intermittently for a while, but seems to be back with a vengeance with the eruption of this whole kinetic deal in Libya we’ve got going. Here is a taste, from yesterday: In six weeks, Obama fails miserably at what Bush père did so very well in one. My favorite part, I think, is in an update:
Oh, yes, I definitely saw this coming:
President Barack Obama told congressional leaders there are no plans to use the U.S. military to assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi — despite the administration’s policy of seeking regime change in the North African country — according to sources familiar with a Friday White House Situation Room briefing.
“There was a discussion of how we have other ways of regime change,” Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told POLITICO. “It’s not our role to do anything at this point from a kinetic point of view. It is our goal for regime change, but we’re not going to do it from a kinetic point of view.”
So yeah, add that to Adm. Gortney’s “guarantee” that Kadafi is “not on the target list” and I think you’ve pretty much got the picture here. We’re going to keep all of our options right out on the table, including holding our breath until we turn blue and we get really dizzy. Except the one option which would really work, right away. That one we’ve ruled out repeatedly.
Kadafi’s possibly the safest person in Libya, at least for tonight. He’s got Obama’s word on it. Even if Obama could just push the button and Kadafi would magically, instantly, disappear without a hair being harmed on any other LIbyan’s head, Obama wouldn’t do it.
Yeah, we’re going over there in large part because he is killing his citizens, so let’s fight a war (did I say that out loud?) and kill the little people . . . but for goodness’ sakes, let’s not kill him! (By the way, John Bolton, as you might guess, disagrees.)
As Beldar indicates, he most definitely did see this coming. Just go to his main page and keep scrolling.
P.S. You know who has no problem with targeted killings? Qadhafi!
I think a bomb or two that happen to go astray and accidentally land on the al-Qaeda guys would be nice. The fog of war and all that.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:19 amto the shores of tropli!
lol.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:20 amI agree Steve.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:21 amoopsers. I meaned *tripoli* sorry about that
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:21 amYay, Beldar. I had just noticed his return about an hour ago, and have been reading through his last week’s worth of posts.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:22 amDo you guys remember when the Democrats actually campaigned on the fact that nothing mattered about what we did in Afghanistan because Osama was not dead?
Now we’re suppose to do everything but perhaps maybe kill Kadafi.
Maybe the difference is the UN resolution?
But Kenneth Adnerson at Volokh happens to think that the UN resolution actually allows for it, and links to an international law expert that interprets the UN resolution in the same way.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:27 amThat example was not the fist time, Quaddafi had done this;http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/edwin_print.htm
narciso (b545d5) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:36 amThere was one glaring difference-at that time; Iraq had invaded Kuwait that was lacking in such nuance that even a UN diplomat could get it.
Saddam’s moving across a nation state border might have helped to do a lot of the “convincing” at the U.N. for “pere” Bush. (-as Beldar refers to him.)
madawaskan (fd190b) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:38 amme I think the best thing for America is to ignore Obama’s poncey Libya theatrics and focus on the spendings – particularly our bankrupt social security and medicare programs
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:44 amObama is an failure at anything including picking his nose.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:49 amOr the other comparison for awhile anyways could have been-Hillary vs. Obama in their responsibilities in this Libya action.
Hillary: France and Briton taking up more responsibility, UN resolution, China abstaining. Russia abstaining. Arab League.
Obama: I’ve got this stuff to do in Brazil.
Hillary’s work starts to fall apart.
Is it possible that the world was watching Obama’s lack of commitment to the mission in his manner of conducting it however remotely?
Possible.
What is definitely the President’s duty or in his job description in comparison to Hillary’s-is to address the American public and to help consolidate public opinion around the effort-after all he-won.
madawaskan (fd190b) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:52 am“It’s not our role to do anything at this point from a kinetic point of view.”–some quasi-sentient Dembot
What the hell is that blather supposed to mean?
Kinetic means “relating to motion” or, it can be a synonym for “dynamic”.
So, you’re saying it’s not our role to do anything from a moving point of view?
That’s nonsense.
Try speaking English, libtards. If you speak gibberish we can’t tell what it is you’re currently lying about. And, it gets very confusing if we don’t know what the current left wing set of lies is.
If you’re too ignorant to know the meaning of words, use some stolen taxpayer money (of which you have plenty) and invest in a dictionary.
Then hire an aide to read it, and explain it to you.
Dave Surls (ecd341) — 3/27/2011 @ 10:03 amActually happyfeet is right.
How did we win the House last time?
No one did campaign commercials about _________ and __________ . Not even the Democrats.
And we think we can equate Libya to Iraq the only problem is CNN didn’t show the mass murders to Americans because they wanted to be in bed with or in Saddam’s closet.
Hell even Obama knows this-it’s why he is so casual about it all. Who’s Code Pink going to run out and vote for-the Republicans?
madawaskan (fd190b) — 3/27/2011 @ 10:22 amTell the truth, leftard pols.
You don’t want to target the other guys’ leaders, because if you target theirs, then they’ll likely respond in kind.
You don’t have a problem with soldiers getting killed (theirs or ours). You don’t have a problem with civilian bystanders getting killed (theirs or ours), but, you have a big, big, big problem with YOU getting killed.
That’s why buildings where government bigwigs hang out are like fortresses these days, with endless armed guards, checkpoints, metal detectors, etc., etc.
Dave Surls (ecd341) — 3/27/2011 @ 10:22 amTelling the opposition exactly what you will and won’t do: the hallmark of a neophyte.
Playing poker with Mr. Obama would be interesting; all of his cards would be on the table, face up.
navyvet (db5856) — 3/27/2011 @ 11:01 amour skank secretary of state just gave Assad free reign to put the opposition down like squealy squealy pigs
America is so awesome.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/27/2011 @ 11:15 am“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people…”
Oh, give me a break.
This is a full blown civil war, you idiots (both Hillary and the dolts in the media qualifying). The “Libyan people” that are being “indiscriminately” strafed and bombed have automatic weapons, artillery, tanks, and even some aircraft, and they control about half the country.
And, if we had an armed uprising like that here, YOU liberals would be blowing the rebels away too.
Shit, when we had “race” riots here in the 1960s, at a time when the liberal Dems were running the federal government, the powers that be killed dozens of rioters, and the “protestors” didn’t have any tanks, just some small arms, molotov cocktails, and a shitload of stolen stereos.
So, spare me the silly propaganda that’s trying to portay the trouble in Libya as being a mean old dictator slaughtering defenseless people.
Tell the truth for once in your worthless lives, lefties.
Dave Surls (ecd341) — 3/27/2011 @ 11:39 amOh, but wait, we are perusing other ways to force Qdaffy to step down. Locked up his assets (as if that ever stopped any dictator), yada, yada.
But hey, trust the community organizer. All this fuss in Libya is going to work out well. Just look at Egypt. Oooops, the Muslim Brotherhood is positioning itself for a takeover in Egypt. That should work out well for the U.S. and Israel.
And now we are getting reports that the administration knew that it was those same Al Qaeda fundalmentalists that were sending jihadists to Iraq for kill American soldiers that are running the show in Libya. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as this administration tries to decide if we are going to arm those tribal jihadists?
So what was the threat to American security in Libya? Oh, yeah, it was a humanitarian mission, although there seemed to have been no mass slaughters in Libya, with the reports coming out a week ago that only around 100 Libyan rebels had been killed. But let’s ignore Darfur. And China, and North Korea.
So here is the week’s wrap up: we are supporting Libyan rebels, and thinking about arming them, although the administration knew that they were probably of the jihadist influence; we have tens of thousands of American oil workers out of a job due to the off-shore ban and lack of permits (in spite of a judge’s orders) but we are giving Petrobas $2 billion and Obama gave Brazil a permit to drill just 165 miles off the Louisiana coast line. And Obama’s basketball picks are as on target as his foreign policy.
What, me worry?
retire05 (63d9af) — 3/27/2011 @ 12:42 pmYour all nazis just like Jan Brewer
/Sarcasm obivously
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/27/2011 @ 12:49 pmI’m glad Beldar is back. I’ve lurked at that site and, as with another favorite site (Closing Velocity), I always wished there’d be more.
Y-not (45d6ad) — 3/27/2011 @ 1:44 pmYou didn’t mention my movie-poster photoshop, which I’m really, really proud of (even though it’s just text editing in the image). I know, it wasn’t a very good movie (except for the pleasure of watching Cameron Diaz, as distinct from her attempts to act).
But, as always, thanks for the link and the kind words.
Beldar (a197ec) — 3/27/2011 @ 6:48 pmI was wondering what reaction you would have to the Roger Simon post, on Couric’s replacement
narciso (b545d5) — 3/27/2011 @ 6:51 pmnarciso, I would hate to see Megyn Kelly go to CBS, and I care naught of Ms. Couric regardless; but I do share Roger’s very high opinion of Ms. Kelly. Indeed, my long-existing regard for Ms. Kelly’s professional abilities is so considerable that I was completely unaffected by the moderate interval which I spent contemplating the glamor photo of Ms. Kelly that Roger re-posted.
Beldar (a197ec) — 3/27/2011 @ 7:16 pmWouldn’t it be a good thing to see Fox News people hired at places like CBS? Despite liberal claims otherwise, I don’t think everyone at Fox News is conservative but I’d like to see those who seem to have open minds cross-pollinate with the MSM.
DRJ (fdd243) — 3/27/2011 @ 7:21 pmThey hired Laura Ingraham, for a few weeks back in 1996 or so, it didn’t take, The reality is most Fox people who end up at other networks, take the example of Kiran Chetry at CNN, get absorbed into
narciso (b545d5) — 3/27/2011 @ 7:26 pmthe culture of the new institution, Now Dana Loesch
is the exception that proves the rule,
Is Princess Nan still bragging about her close relationship with the Assad’s?
AD-RtR/OS! (ee6e18) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:35 pmDRJ, the patient is already brain dead and on a ventilator. Injecting fresh blood won’t help.
Beldar (a197ec) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:57 pmThere I go with violent imagery again. I’m such a racist.
Beldar (a197ec) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:57 pm