Patterico's Pontifications

3/30/2011

More Bites From the Bread-Based Waste Containment Operation… (Update: A Defection)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:38 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

The title of this post is a PG version of a joke Stewart makes at the very end of this clip:

And he is in turn borrowing from this longer clip, where they are explaining that the President is calling Libya a “turd sandwich,” although she was not certain whether Obama personally felt this way or was merely repeating what an advisor called it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And of course the man most eager to bite into it was Fast Eddie Schultz.  Seriously, I have come to believe Schultz is performance art, creating a leftward parody of what the left believes Rush Limbaugh does.  In the latest example of this idiot’s dishonesty, he asserts that if we are opposed to the war in Libya, we are standing with the terrorists and are generally unpatriotic. Yes, really:

(Via: Mediaite.)  Now, while I have said this war is unlawful because it has not received congressional approval (herehere, herehere and here), I have always believed that Congress should approve of the mission and we should go kick Gdaffy’s ass.  But I don’t think anyone is being unpatriotic to say, “no, we shouldn’t.”  For one thing, we are already in two wars.  And for another Obama has blown a hole in our deficit, which is another change from 2003.  I mean Bush was bad on the deficit, but comparing Bush’s suckitude on the deficit to Obama’s is like comparing a dog that barks all night to a zombie apocalypse.  Not to mention the fact that the President himself called it a Turd Sandwich.  I mean its hard to call it unpatriotic to criticize a war that the President himself personally called that, even if he was merely repeating the words of his advisor.

Oh, and there is the little matter of the fact that we might be helping terrorists:

Eastern Libya, where the rebels are based, has long been suspected of supplying recruits for terrorist organizations. “Al Qaeda in that part of the country is obviously an issue,” a senior official told the New York Times. At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, NATO military commander Admiral James Stavridis said intelligence reports showed “flickers” of Al Qaeda’s and Hezbollah’s presence among rebel forces. Eastern Libya was the center of Islamist protests in the late nineties, but it’s unclear whether groups here are still tied to Al Qaeda.

Now the truth is we don’t know very much about these rebels, but that didn’t stop Obama from providing covert aid to them:

Sources tells ABC News that President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations to “aid the effort” in Libya, where the US is working with NATO, and Arab partners to enforce a no-fly zone, protect civilians, and encourage Col. Moammar Gadhafi to step down from power.

The finding discusses a number of ways to help the opposition in Libya, authorizing some assistance now and setting up a legal framework for more robust activities in the future.

The finding does NOT direct covert operatives to provide arms to the rebels right now, though it does prepare for such a contingency and other contingencies should the president decide to go down that road in the future.

So, um, it’s a secret order authorizing a covert mission, reported all around the world on ABC News.  Great.  So, let me ask a few questions. First, is this really supposed to be secret, or are they just pretending it is supposed to be?  Second, is the secrecy really important?  I mean I assume that the actual locations and nature of the covert ops needs to be secret, but is the fact they even exist supposed to be secret?  I am frankly skeptical of that, because I had in fact assumed we were already doing that as would anyone with a few years of experience and more than two brain cells to rub together.  But at the same time if it was really supposed to be secret, and it really prejudices our efforts to have it outted, will there be any investigation into this leak?

And for that matter, should Jake Tapper have reported it in the first place?   I tweeted him a question on the subject, but he has yet to reply, and probably won’t.  But then again, if this was a disclosure that he believed to be authorized by the White House, that exonerates him in my book.

Meanwhile, Matt Lauer thinks it is just dandy to intervene in Libya, even if it results in helping al Qaeda, because we will show AQ how compassionate we are:

(Via Newsbusters.)  Remember folks, Michele Bachmann is the stupid one.

Update: As if that isn’t fun enough we have recently seen the defection of Moussa Kousa, the Libyan Foreign Minister, to the British.  There is a positive side to this in that he is very likely to be able to tell our forces where to drop the bombs.  But there is a downside, too:

He was expelled from London in 1980 after giving an extraordinary newspaper interview when he was the head of the embassy in which he said two Libyan dissidents living in London would be killed.

Speaking outside the Libyan embassy in St James’s Square, Mr Koussa told The Times: “The revolutionary committees have decided last night to kill two more people in the United Kingdom. I approve of this.”

He returned to Libya after being given 48 hours to leave the UK, where he was accused of funding terrorist groups.

Mr Kousa was named by intelligence sources in the mid-1990s as the possible architect of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, and the blowing up the following year of a French airliner in central Africa in which 170 people died

So it looks like neither side in this fight will be terrorist-free.  And look, grown-ups understand that sometimes you have to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, without liking either man.  But contrary to what Fast Eddie thinks, or pretends to think, it is not an inherently unpatriotic to say, “yes, sometimes you have to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, but not this time.”

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

29 Responses to “More Bites From the Bread-Based Waste Containment Operation… (Update: A Defection)”

  1. Ed Schultz has to be the only person on TV that Joe Biden can outthink.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Matt Lauer is a close second, although I’m not sure I’d call what he does “thinking.”

    DRJ (fdd243)

  3. In addition to the “bread-based waste containment operation,” I thought Jon Stewart’s NPR-style credits for “the Chubb Group, and the Barry and Helen Lipshitz Foundation” were clever.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  4. Matt Lauer thinks it is just dandy to intervene in Libya, even if it results in helping al Qaeda, because we will show AQ how compassionate we are:

    NECK EXPLODES (lost my head this afternoon)

    This is what Al Qaida is, Matt.

    Thanks to Matt, I know that I am completely capable of bona fide hatred of someone merely for being dumb.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. Dustin

    But that is like so 10 years ago. What have they done for to us lately?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  6. more seriously, i am amazed that liberals think our compassion would impress the psychopaths in AQ. they would likely interpret it as weakness.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  7. If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as three separate issues, then yes, we now have three wars. I think an argument could be made that they are three fronts of the same war. Even if I accept that position, I’m not totally convinced they are the correct three fronts, but I think that the idea is defensible.

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  8. Thanks to Matt, I know that I am completely capable of bona fide hatred of someone merely for being dumb.

    Heh…especially when they’re that dumb and earn $13 million a year…which, now that I think of it, might make the dumb part null and void, no?

    Dana (9f3823)

  9. No it’s different fronts of the same campaign, along with the Horn of Africa. Honestly I’m going to be ill, if Musa Kusa doesn’t deserve to hang, then who does,

    narciso (b545d5)

  10. they would likely interpret it as weakness.

    Of course they would. Of course they would!

    They murdered thousands of our civilians. Children, women, old people. And we’re showing them compassion? The only person who would show Al Qaida compassion is either pure evil or so stupid they have the same result as being evil.

    Matt disgraces those lost souls by actually encouraging aid and comfort to al qaida.

    Noman Benotman, an associate of Osama Bin Laden, says al qaida leadership did not expect much retaliation from the USA when they planned their attacks. It was part of their calculation that they could hit us hard without the USA striking back. Of course, they planned 9/11 when Bill Clinton was president, and frankly he did not react very strongly to repeated terror attacks (to include bombing the WTC, an attempt to murder thousands of innocent people, which was treated as a mere crime).

    Their only screw up was not realizing someone like Bush might be president, who wouldn’t follow the Matt Lauer playbook on milk and cookies for butchers.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  11. Even if I accept that position, I’m not totally convinced they are the correct three fronts, but I think that the idea is defensible.

    Imagine if Obama wanted to poison the concept of the war on terror. Let’s apply the mentality of the Cloward Piven strategy to ruining the war on terror. You might decide to expand the war on terror in a completely stupid way.

    I don’t buy that… I think Obama is simply not very concerned about the long term implications, and decided to go to war for his own political survival after voting present made him look terrible. He’s struggling in his effort to follow the Bush playbook with his inferior leadership skill.

    But the effect could be the same. It will be very hard to gain public support for dealing with Iran if the Libyan effort is ruinous.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  12. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on current kinectic military activity, President GE has made a unilateral decision to commit our volunteer service members into harm’s way.

    Don’t forget to support them. They do their duty for our nation.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  13. Brief mention on the ten o’clock news tonite that there was a United flight on its way to Portland Oregon diverted to land in Chicago last night because of “3 unruly passengers, one of whom wore a backpack and got into an altercation with a flight attendant.”. A female passenger who was interviewed on TV said, “you hate to get into profiling, but….” and her voice trailed off. None of the others who were interviewed minded the delay or were the least bit sorry that the plane landed so the mid-eastern men could be removed. Funny– the only other mention of the incident I could find was in an Oregon paper. How many of these occurrences are there that the public never hears about? (Apparently no one from NPR was aboard to be appalled and offended that some passengers were nervous.)

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/03/portland-bound_flight_diverted.html

    elissa (b329f9)

  14. I can’t believe Eddie was going to go to Alan Grayson in that clip A.W. embedded. Slime attracts slime unfortunately, but I had hopes that turd would disappear after he got his butt kicked last fall.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  15. Eyes explode at matt Lauer’s useful idiocy.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  16. ________________________________________

    Not to mention the fact that the President himself called it a Turd Sandwich.

    I wouldn’t have minded it if, when it comes to Libya, Obama had favored an isolationist policy, which would place him in sync with a percentage of both liberal and conservative policymakers and analysts. After all, Kadafi and his opponents (way too many Al Qaeda connections?) are one big muddle, one big Hobson’s Choice. But that would have required Obama coming out and stating clearly and firmly from the beginning that if NATO, among others, wanted to be do-gooders about Libya, then it was their baby to take care of.

    I guess it’s more of a leftist thing to be opposed to dealing with Kadafi and his Libya, but this is one time when I could have accepted that. IOW, Libya is sort of a military and foreign-affairs variation of what’s described below. So even when Obama can show his true colors — and be the ultra-liberal that he is at his core — he manages to screw that up.

    Weeklystandard.com, Bill Kristol, February 2010:

    [Liberal New York Times columnist] Paul Krugman is, I think, right to be amazed by Obama’s embrace of the $17 million bonus given to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

    If Obama’s idea of moving to the middle politically is to embrace Wall Street’s too-big-to-fail banks, he’s crazy. Usually Republicans are the party of Big Business and Democrats of Big Government, and the public’s hostility to both more or less evens the politics out. But if Obama now becomes the spokesman for Big Government intrusiveness and the apologist for Big Business irresponsibility all at once–good luck with that.

    Mark (411533)

  17. the Chinese communists wouldn’t have a problem like this although the kuomintang dhimmis would side with the chinese muslims.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  18. I don’t know if that’s particularly true, Zinjiang
    and Taiwan are both break away provinces, but that’s about the extent of it.

    narciso (b545d5)

  19. So why are we getting involved with libya?

    Shouldn’t we mind our own buisness?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  20. Search me, Doh, this thing has really jumped the megalodon,

    narciso (b545d5)

  21. So today Qaddafi strikes back, and there’s that hilarious speech about “dumb wars” and “rash wars” Baracky made in 2002 about Iraq going around the blogosphere today that makes Obama look like uh well Obama…

    Obama: Qaddafi has to go.
    Military: Qaddafi isn’t on the target list.
    Obama: We’re just making sure Qaddafi can’t massacre civilians.
    Military: We’re trying to help them take over the country from Qaddafi.
    Obama: This will last days, not weeks.
    Military: This will last months, not weeks.
    Defense Secretary Gates: There is no time limit.
    Obama: We won’t be sending troops.
    News: CIA linking up with rebels.
    Obama: Qaddafi must go.
    News: Qaddafi successfully counterattacks.

    Next Step: ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Looks like we’ve rashly got ourselves into a war that is rapidly turning dumb; great job, not-that-retard-Bush Obama!

    We’re stuck with this for who knows how long now, who knows what “effort” we’ll have to make, and guess who definitely doesn’t know: the President of the United States.

    deepelemblues (a78b16)

  22. The Al Qaeda fighters in Libya are probably just moderate radical Islamist fanatics. Nothing to see here. Arm them and be done with it.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  23. “Matt Lauer thinks it is just dandy to intervene in Libya, even if it results in helping al Qaeda, because we will show AQ how compassionate we are:”

    Right.

    First we show them how compassionate we are, then we blow them apart with Hellfires or fry them with napalm, after we’ve allayed their suspicions.

    C’mon, even Muslims aren’t dumb enough to fall for that old dodge.

    Now, if we were fighting lefties…

    Dave Surls (a05694)

  24. Search you? I’am not an TSA agent.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  25. Compassion towards AQ….

    That would be shooting him with a JHP for maximum killing effect, rather than riddling his sorry ass with FMJ’s to allow him to bleed out slowly and painfully.

    AD-RtR/OS! (e05ee5)

  26. We went to war against the Serbs with our al qaeda allies and that was supposed to show “compassion” for the poor ethnic Albanians. They gave us 9/11 a couple years later.

    j curtis (60320c)

  27. Deep

    its more like the underpants gnome theory of warfare.

    Step 1. No fly zone.

    Step 2.

    Step 3. Regime change!

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  28. Yeah Juan Mccoot supported that war.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  29. ts more like the underpants gnome theory of warfare.
    Step 1. No fly zone.
    Step 2.
    Step 3. Regime change!

    Um, no. The theory behind the no-fly zone is obvious. Its purpose is to give the rebels a fighting chance. It doesn’t guarantee that they’ll win, but if they can’t win a ground war then maybe they’re not ready to win yet. But no matter how ready they are they can’t do much about being bombarded from the air, so we prevent that. This is why Republicans like McCain and Palin were calling for this a month ago; and had it been done a month ago maybe it would have done more good. The bottom line is that whether it works or not, it’s at least a reasonable idea, not an underpants gnome idea.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3518 secs.