(Scott) Rich Lowry cruelly asks : “Is it a war or a Marx Brothers comedy?” I believe that the Obama administration’s position is that it is neither. Rather, Rich is positing what the president likes to condemn as “a false choice.” Like others whom the president condemns in this fashion, however, Rich is on to something. He links to the New York Times article by Thom Shanker and Charlie Savage reporting that NATO is prepared to bomb the the LIbyan rebels (or “rebels,” as I prefer to call them) whom we have intervened to support. Shanker and Savage lead their story with this: “Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.” Shanker and Savage report in paragraph two: “As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.” Was it only the day before yesterday that the Obama administration was debating whether we should arm the “rebels”? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Obama was holding the debate with himself: “I’m not ruling it out. But I’m also not ruling it in,” Obama told NBC News in an interview Tuesday evening. Maybe he’ll be able to rule on it once he figures out who the heck the “rebels” are. Damn, these limited kinetic engagement deals can get hairy.
Read this article:
The Libya farce, cont’d
Maverick. Really irritating, and I say that knowing it’ll damage my cherished RINO cred. From his letter tonight to Reid and McConnell: I am disappointed that despite passing six different FY 2011 Continuing Resolutions, each with the understanding that passage would move bi-partisan negotiations further along, that we are once again faced with the likelihood of Read this post
On Wednesday's All Things Considered, NPR's Ari Shapiro acted as a stenographer for the Obama administration's energy proposals. Shapiro played four clips from the President's recent speech on the issue, and another from a sympathetic environmentalist. Even the lone clip from an oil industry representative came from someone who ” supports the move to invest in biofuels and clean energy .” At the beginning of his report , the correspondent noted that “the White House described this event as a pivot away from speeches about Libya and Japan. But President Obama acknowledged that those crises make it important to talk about energy now.” After playing his first clip from the chief executive, who stated that “the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security,” Shapiro stayed within the perspective set by the Democrat: ” America's past is strewn with moments when a global crisis has driven up the price of gas or scared people about the risks of nuclear energy .” The NPR reporter continued by playing up Mr. Obama's past speeches during trips to green energy industrial site: ” This president often travels the country, speaking at electric car battery plants, wind turbine manufacturers, or solar panel factories. Today's speech at Georgetown University tied together many of the proposals from those events. It's not an either/or approach to energy. It's both/and .” Later, Shapiro barely touched on the critiques of the White House's energy policy before playing a clip of the President giving his talking point about his reluctance to encourage domestic oil production: SHAPIRO: Oil industry executives say President Obama has limited domestic energy production by imposing new regulations on drilling. Mr. Obama called that a useful political sound bite that doesn't track with reality, and he also suggested that it's beside the point . OBAMA: Even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess, offshore and onshore, it still wouldn't be enough to meet our long-term needs. We consume about 25 percent of the world's oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves. Near the end of his report, the correspondent finally turned to his two non-Obama sound bites, one from Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute, the “biofuels and clean energy” backer who also touched on the reality of the country's continuing need for oil and natural gas, and Dale Bryk of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He ended by touting the administration's point that their proposals would help create jobs. The full transcript of Ari Shapiro's report from Wednesday's All Things Considered: MELISSA BLOCK: President Obama took the long view today. With gas prices going up and trouble with the nuclear plant in Japan, the President said in a speech that the U.S. must become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. He wants to cut American oil imports by a third over the next decade. NPR's Ari Shapiro reports on how the President plans to get there. ARI SHAPIRO: The White House described this event as a pivot away from speeches about Libya and Japan. But President Obama acknowledged that those crises make it important to talk about energy now. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from speech at Georgetown University): Obviously, the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security. The situation in Japan leaves us to ask questions about our energy sources. SHAPIRO: America's past is strewn with moments when a global crisis has driven up the price of gas or scared people about the risks of nuclear energy. President Obama said every one of his predecessors, going back to Richard Nixon, has talked about energy independence, and nobody ever manages to do anything about it. OBAMA: We cannot keep going from shock, when gas prices go up, to trance, when they go back down. SHAPIRO: This president often travels the country, speaking at electric car battery plants, wind turbine manufacturers, or solar panel factories. Today's speech at Georgetown University tied together many of the proposals from those events. It's not an either/or approach to energy. It's both/and. OBAMA: Meeting the goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things. First, finding and producing more oil at home. Second, reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. SHAPIRO: Oil industry executives say President Obama has limited domestic energy production by imposing new regulations on drilling. Mr. Obama called that a useful political sound bite that doesn't track with reality, and he also suggested that it's beside the point. OBAMA: Even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess, offshore and onshore, it still wouldn't be enough to meet our long-term needs. We consume about 25 percent of the world's oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves. SHAPIRO: Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute supports the move to invest in biofuels and clean energy. ERIK MILITO: But, you know, we have to remember there's 250 million cars on the road. We can convert a lot of them, but, at the same time, we're going to need oil and natural gas for many decades to come. SHAPIRO: Dale Bryk of the Natural Resources Defense Council is optimistic that this time around, the promise of reducing foreign oil consumption for clean energy could actually come true. DALE BRYK: This is an area of global competition, and the Chinese and the Germans and the Danes are eating our lunch, and I don't think the American people or American businesses are going to stand for that. SHAPIRO: And the White House hopes that investing in domestic energy production will have another positive side effect: by creating energy at home, companies create jobs at home, too. Ari Shapiro, NPR News, Washington. — Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here .
Read more here:
NPR Toes the Line for President Obama’s Energy Policy
Michael Scheuer, a former counter-terrorism analyst for the CIA, scolded CNN's Christine Romans Thursday for letting her support for the current President show. Toward the end of a lengthy interview on “American Morning” about the situation in Libya, Romans took issue with her guest saying America is “nearly bankrupt” leading Scheuer to respond, “You're just carrying the water for Mr. Obama” (video follows with transcript and commentary): KIRAN CHETRY, CNN ANCHOR: You know, you led the CIA unit that tracked Osama bin Laden in 1996 to 1999, and you believe that much like that situation, America's involvement in Libya, could prove to be a recruiting tool for extremists. Why? MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CIA COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Oh, it's absolutely a recruiting tool. It's the American- led West attacking a Muslim country that has oil. CHETRY: But they're very careful to say it's the American-led West. That NATO is now fully taking over the operation. SCHEUER: Well, that — CHETRY: Yes, our firepower was used in the beginning, but that this is a coalition that includes Arab states. SCHEUER: That may fool some Americans. It's not going to fool the people who sympathize with bin Laden and other Islamists. This is really a U.S.-led operation. And you talk about Arab states that are involved — the Arab states are tyrannies that are hated by their own people. This is — this is a piece of theater set up by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain and the bipartisan group that loves to intervene abroad. In the Muslim world, this is Americans killing Muslims again and it looks like it's for oil. CHETRY: I just want to ask. Are you trying to have both ways in saying that, OK, these are tyrannies that hate their own people, well, that's why we're helping because in Libya, it was the people that wanted Gadhafi out, that they were tired of it. So, weren't we then supporting Islamic democracy, I guess you could say, in these countries where they're tired of totalitarian rule? SCHEUER: If we were supporting Islamic democracy, that would be one thing. But if you listen to Mrs. Clinton and especially rather crazed Ms. Rice at the U.N., this is all about democracy in a world where democracy is not going to take hold. CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: I think it's very clear, Michael Scheuer, that you are no fan of this policy and this administration. I think calling Ambassador Rice crazed is certainly a significant charge. SCHEUER: Well, I don't know. I've just listened to her. You know, that's only my impression. And I have to say, this is not a Democratic problem, this is a Republican problem, too. Both parties love to intervene in other people's business where there are no U.S. interests at stake and where we spend enormous amounts of money that when we're nearly bankrupt. That doesn't seem to be a wise practice of American statesmanship. ROMANS: And that's another story, to call the United States bankrupt. The United States is running huge deficits, yes, but the economy and this mission in Libya are two separate issues. SCHEUER: They're not separate issues, ma'am. You're just carrying the water for Mr. Obama. ROMANS: I'm certainly not carrying anyone's water. And I will assure you of that. Michael Scheuer, thank you so much for your time. You know, we had a very long exhaustive interview. You had plenty of time to give your point on that. As you can see at the end, Romans clearly didn't appreciate being told she was carrying water for the Administration. Maybe in the future she should do a better job of hiding it. (H/T Mediaite )
View post:
Former CIA Agent Scolds CNN Anchor: ‘You’re Just Carrying Water For Obama’
Now we know what a “kinetic military operation” really means… The Obama Administration is talking about bombing the rebels too. ( NYT ) This is just way too confusing. Bryan Preston at The Tatler reported: Well, this is one way to guarantee that no matter which side wins, we lose . “We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.” The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: Who in Libya is a civilian? More… Joe College added: “This is what happens when you give an aircraft carrier to a community organizer.”
Here is the original post:
Figures. Now the Obama Administration Wants to Bomb the Rebels Too
“Mushoom’s Mustache physically excites me!”~Emerson “Goatly” Begolly Begolly archives for those who don’t know who the hell he is.
Read this article:
Thinking of Emerson Begolly
MORIOKA, Japan | Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan on Thursday joined French President Nicolas Sarkozy in calling for independent experts to help set tougher international safety standards for nuclear energy. In a joint press conference after their meeting in Tokyo, the leaders of two of the world’s largest nuclear power …
Originally posted here:
Sarkozy, Kan see G8 nuclear safety talks
Via Pat Dollard WASHINGTON — Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials. As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished. “We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.” The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: Who in Libya is a civilian ?[Emphasis mine..ed] What to do, what to do. Headline unselfishly stolen from JoAnne M.
Read more from the original source:
Keystone Cops: Now NATO Threatens to Bomb Rebels in Libya
MATT GOURAS Associated Press HELENA, Mont. The Montana Senate endorsed on Thursday a proposal popular with House Republicans to crack down on local school district sex education policies — a reaction to a contentious curriculum proposal last year in Helena. House Bill 456 would require schools to notify parents in advance of sex education and receive the parent’s written consent before their… examinerpolitics.com
See the original post here:
Senate endorses House’s sex ed crackdown
Priorities. Coming soon to a Chuck Schumer press conference near you. “We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying,” USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee. “Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would Read this post