Mona Eltahawy, a former Reuters correspondent, has been a recent favorite of CNN and MSNBC’s weekend morning shows to discuss Egypt. Now she’s gotten herself arrested for being an idiot in public, or vandalism.
See her make a complete fool of herself. No doubt boosting her street creds for MSNBC.
Link: NewsBusters
One would expect President Obama to have already told Egypt’s (and Muslim Brotherhood’s) President Mohamed Morsi that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are among our core values. It’s been that way from the start. So get over it already. That didn’t happen.
But there was some talk about the two meeting sometime during the Star Wars bar scene at the U.N. General Assembly on Sunday.
Now that’s not happening either.
Having already put President Obama on defense by spelling out pre-conditions to a talk between the two, the president finds himself on the short end of the foreign policy stick again.
Morsi pre-conditions . . .
If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.
Not that it makes a difference who cancelled who, the result is the same. Like voting present. But Morsi seems to have as much reason to cancel a meeting between the two as Obama.
The Obama Doctrine seems to be in full-meltdown mode when it comes to the war on terror and radical Islam.
Brings to mind how in critical times in history, the right man for the right time comes along. The way the Muslim world is roundly condemning the United States and President Obama, it seems that he is not the right man for this time.
Links: Egypt’s New Leader Spells Out Terms for U.S.-Arab Ties | Obama cancels election-season meeting with Egyptian Islamist Morsi
Remember how gruff and disrespectful the Clint Eastwood bit was at the RNC? I don’t either. It was a reflection of reality. A reality of an empty suit in The White House was parodied as the empty chair. And it wasn’t even a stretch.
Do you remember a national crisis where Americans were attacked and killed, like our Libyan Embassy people on Sept 11, when the American people were not addressed personally by the President on TV from the Oval Office within minutes if not hours of the event? I don’t.
It’s been thirteen days since the terrorist attack on our people and the president is still MIA. But he did characterize the 9/11 attacks as a foreign policy ‘bump in the road.’
Candidate Obama is the one who promised that he could change the hearts and minds of Islamic terrorists with his ‘new direction’ in foreign policy. The reality is that this direction is nothing new, where Barack Obama is concerned.
His ‘new direction’ alienates allies and emboldens our enemies. President Obama is merely doing in foreign policy what he is accustomed to do in law policies. This is his national security version of voting ‘present.’
The recent killing of our Ambassador called a lot in to question. Lack of security at the Embassy and at the ‘safe house’ being only one. What is it about these murdering Muslims? Why do they continue to hate us now? President Obama told us he’s got this under control. Elect him and they will like us. Hope & Change. All that.
Jean Aziz, columnist for the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, believes it’s all our fault. That “the repeated mistakes of U.S. policy in the Middle East and vis-à-vis the Islamic world could lead to another 9/11.”
President Obama finally confirmed what I said four yeas ago about all his complaining about the cost of two wars in his acceptance speech Thursday night. The sleight-of-hand with borrowed money.
President Obama’s acceptance speech 9/6/2012 . . .
I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways.
Because after two wars that have cost us thousands
of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some
nation- building right here at home.
Here’s where he is wrong. The money spent on the war is borrowed. So he wants to borrow more money, another trillion dollars, to pay down the debt (which is now over 16 trillion dollars) and to build roads and bridges. (Like he told us he was going to do with the last ‘stimulus’ spending bill, and didn’t. Remember the ‘shovel ready’ joke?) In the Progressive/Liberal mind, spending your way to prosperity and borrowing your way out of debt makes sense. My calculator tells me the debt will grow by another trillion dollars. It’s time to stop opening new credit cards to pay off old ones, while committing generational theft.
Lunch Counter 9/9/2008, speaking to the cost of war issue . . .
True, the cost of the war is great. Unfortunately, the cost of losing it is greater. Early on in their [Obama and Democrats] chorus of the immense cost of the war, I suspected that they were basically looking at the ‘cost’ of the war as opportunities lost for all sorts of entitlement and other socialistic programs that build (read ‘buy’) voter constituencies.
What is the answer to the enormous cost of the war? When it ends, the cost also ends. Who knows, we might need it again some day.
This from a guy who said it will bankrupt our country, that we can’t afford these wars. How does his arithmetic tell him that we can afford it now providing we spend it? That’s a rhetorical question. It’s Liberal math.
Terrorist leader Oumar Ould Hamaha is running his “Movement for Unity and Jihad” in West Africa. “Unity” in the minds of these Islamist radical, bigoted, if not racist Muslims, means getting rid of non-believers.
I told my elements that we need to get rid of these people because they are refusing to respect us.
The extremists have since made “huge gains,” taking the entire northern half of Mali, including Timbuktu, and causing some 440,000 people to flee, according to the useless United Nations.
Respect them, convert to their version of Islam, or die. That’s what this whole ‘movement’ is about. And their soul brothers in this ‘movement’ is a world-wide group called the Muslim Brotherhood. The group that the Obama administration said was a harmless, “largely secular” group when they helped them take over Egypt.
The term “racist” has really been abused in today’s political vernacular. If you’re a racist, you believe that races other than yours are inferior by genetics. If you’re a bigot, you just don’t like them because of who they are, or the color of their skin. Not that one is genetically superior to others.
At the risk of bastardizing the word ‘racist,’ there is a similarity to be drawn between this whole Islamic Jihad movement and racism. These Islamists, Muslims, actually believe that anyone of any color that does not accept their religion, and embrace their religion instead of their own, just need to be gotten rid of. If there was such a thing as a “religious racist,” that’s exactly what they would be.
They simply do not accept the existence of what they call ‘non-believers.’ For these terrorists, non-believers are a to-do list. There’s no ‘live and let live’ in their perverted religion. It’s you comply. You submit. Or you die.
In another example of liberal-think that is a mirror image of the “No Place In The Public Square” comment by liberal commentator Robert Beckel, Washington Post editorial columnist Charles Lane doesn’t believe military people should have a say in the public political arena either.
In discussing the Navy Seals political ad, Chuck Lane said this . . .
“I don’t believe military and intelligence people, even retireds, should have a major role in politics.”
The statement begins at 01:04 into the video.
In just the last two weeks, the Left doesn’t approve of, successful business people (Bob Beckel) or people in the military, active or retired, or people in the intelligence community (Chuck Lane), having a say in the public political discourse.
Both times, Beckel and Lane, were on a FOX News program. And both times the statements went unchallenged. Granted that those statements were not the topic of the discussion and would have changed the topic had they been challenged. So I can half understand why they were left to fly on by.
Seems to me that the Left’s desire to squelch speech and opinions that they don’t like, is a story in and of itself.
|
Day 7 |
In the name of |
In the name of |
By |
| Terror Attacks |
71 |
0 |
0 |
| Dead Bodies |
332 |
0 |
0 |
Link: The Religion of Peace
According to a ‘Afghan official,’ the United States paid $50,000 and $11,000 respectively for each death and injury from the shooting spree that left 17 dead and some number wounded in Kandahar province. That’s up from the usual $2,000 and $1,000 in ‘compensation payments’ for what is called civilian casualties. This dramatic increase is because of ‘the devastating nature of the incident.’
The families of the dead, who received the money Saturday at the governor’s office, were told that the money came from U.S. President Barack Obama, said Kandahar provincial council member Agha Lalai. He and community elder Jan Agha confirmed the payout amounts.
So what’s this about the money coming from President Obama instead of the American people?
al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims to support Syrian rebels. Good work on that Arab Spring thing President Obama. Syria on one side, Egypt on the other, and Israel the ‘monkey in the middle.’ Only in reverse.
Now, after weeks of slaughtering their own people, the United Nations (aka Useless Nations) and the Arab League call for a peacekeeping force. One small problem with that. There first has to be peace to keep. And right now Syrian President Bashar Assad has his tanks in the cities shooting his citizens.
As an aside, have you noticed the citizens throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at the military who are shooting bullets. Know why that is? The people are not allowed to have guns. Only the military and police may have guns. Syrians, same as in Egypt, are not allowed to own guns. I bet they wish they had the right to keep and bear arms. They sure could use it.
Today Sen. Leiberman and others are calling for the administration to support the Syrian ‘rebels’ covertly and overtly with weapons so they can not only defend themselves, but can have some chance of overthrowing the Assad regime.
That’s an interesting proposal. But how about thinking that one through. Do you want al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Syria?
That’s what happened in Egypt. You can’t deal with Syria effectively enough without including Iran, the puppet master of terror in the Middle East. And not without coming out publicly to explain the end game of who or what will be in charge after Assad.
But that takes leadership.