I am scrolling through reading the comments at this post at Ace of Spades HQ and I came across this one. Reading through it, I am thinking “this comment kicks major ass, bravo!” Then, I got to the end and saw that it was a female that posted it… major turn on!
I need to meet women with this fire…
You know what it’s just the cherry on top of the sundae (pun intended here). Obama has been in the White House for, what is it, 20 weeks now, and he’s taken more breaks and had more free time than even what they accused Bush of. He’s taken his wife to a Broadway show, he’s taken her back to Chicago for Valentine’s Day. He’s gone out for burgers multiple times. On their overseas trips he’s gone out for dinners with her. He’s played golf over and over and over again, he’s hosted countless parties in the White House, he’s flown all over the country to sign bills and give “town halls.”
Look, quite frankly I am sick and tired of hearing that Obama gets to have a normal life. F*** THAT he’s the F***ING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and I’d appreciate it if he’d starting acting like a President instead of a major movie star.
And, it isn’t Father’s Day today, it’s Father’s Day tomorrow, so if he needed to take his girls out for ice cream, it would have made more sense to do it tomorrow.
Oh yeah, and f*** you Palin Steele I’m so tired of your f***ing posts. Nothing you say is of value here. Absolutely nothing. You are an idiot and I can only hope that you grow up someday and realize what a f***ing idiot you were when you were young and do something good with your life to make up for it.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 20, 2009 05:10 PM
Seriously, if the man didn’t have a pattern of doing this sh*t, one trip for ice cream with the girls wouldn’t be a big deal. But he does, so frankly I think it’s OK if people want to be pissed off that he’s eating ice cream.
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 20, 2009 05:13 PM
PGIS… freedom means you are free to go get ice cream and be a dipsh*t if you want.
You just can’t have it both ways. We call for freedom unless it’s someone we don’t like and we’re gonna tell them how to behave?
C’mon, this sh*t’s over the top. Big f***ing deal. It’s just the same old self centered clown.
I have no idea what you are trying to say to me, but my point still stands, if this was one instance of him doing something like that, yeah whatever, big deal, but he’s been pulling stuff like this for his entire Presidency so far. Dying your hair gray and feigning seriousness isn’t enough to be Presidential. You actually have to act Presidential too. And all I’ve seen from Obama is someone who is a huge narcissist who probably really should’ve been a major movie star instead of the leader of our country because he doesn’t have the gravitas that should come with that job.
Disagree with me, that’s fine, but at what point do all these “no big deal” excursions finally add up to a big deal?
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 20, 2009 05:27 PM
[NOTE: “Palin Steele” is one of the resident “trolls” over at Ace of Spades HQ. Troll = someone who posts a comment not for any value, but simply to stir sh** up and piss people off.]
And while I have no idea whether “eman” is a male or female, regardless, this comment is a great explanation of why we are giving sh*t to Obama and his media minions over this Ice Cream trip:
Giving Barry a pass on going for ice cream with his kids would be a lot easier if Barry had been b*tch-slapping Iran for the past several days. Not so easy when you know Barry has been stroking his own *ss in front of the mirror all this time.
Giving the MSM a pass on reporting fluff in a time of crisis would be easier if the MSM had been dutiful regarding Barry from day one.
Now, these two streams of narcissism and *ss-licking have merged right at the time when they can draw the most attention and ridicule.
You haven’t earned a pass, Barry.
You haven’t earned a pass, Mr. Knoller.
Posted by: eman at June 20, 2009 05:13 PM
kbdabear has it right too:
23 C’mon Drew, geezus, do you expect the world to stop turning? I’m no fan of zero but posting a blog about shagging ice cream is about as stupid as PETA expressing outrage over a fly getting swatted… Big deal.
The point isn’t that Obama took the girls for ice cream while Worf was having her fangs cleaned.
The point is that events in Iran are constantly moving, people are being murdered in the streets, people want to know what’s going on, and the DemSM assigns an army of reporters to give us the very latest on his ice cream run.
As I’ve said, the DemSM should stick to what they do best, which is reporting on celebrity crotch shots and turn the real news over to serious people.
Posted by: kbdabear at June 20, 2009 05:32 PM
Once again folks, the outrage isn’t Teleprompter taking the girls out for ice cream, the outrage is that douchenozzles like Mark Knobpolisher and his fellow media trained seals thought that the trip was THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY IN THE WORLD
Posted by: kbdabear at June 20, 2009 05:51 PM
100 Meh, on the one hand, yeah, okay, the president is allowed to take his kids out for ice cream. On any other day, I’d shrug and just be vaguely annoyed that the MSM looks at it as a drool-worthy moment. I mean geesus, before the shop down the street closed my parents took me for ice cream ALL THE TIME. It doesn’t make him the BEST DAD EVAR and it certainly doesn’t make him the BEST PRESIDENT EVAR. The MSM really needs to stfu about the guy, because I’m already getting the wicked urge to take a sharpie to every picture I see of him. Which is hard when you work surrounded by magazine stands.
But today, yeah, it’s inappropriate. People are dying in Iran because they have the gall to ask for liberty. Not the best time for an ice cream run. If he had just waited until tomorrow, even conservative might say ‘okay, yeah, it’s Father’s Day. An hour off for ice cream is understandable.’ But today? Not so much.
Posted by: Revvy at June 20, 2009 05:33 PM
Okay, I lied. Had to post this one too:
You know what, I don’t give a flying F*** that Sasha and Malia don’t get as much quality time with their dad. Boo f***ing hoo – welcome to the stresses of having a dad with a difficult job. I’d go weeks without seeing my father because of his job. My son just got finished spending 7 months without his dad. I’ve got friends whose children don’t get to see their father for a year or more. That’s life girls, get used to it.
Unfreakingbelievable. Like someone above said, why doesn’t Barry just say “Sorry girls, Dad’s got sh*t to do?” Or how’s about getting the ice cream delivered — hell, they flew in pizza from f***ing Chicago after all — and they all eat it in the Oval Office? Hearing him say things like “I take the weekends off to spend with my family” pisses me off to no end. You know who CAN’T take the weekends off to spend time with their family? THE TROOPS, you f***ing waste of space. The guys who have sworn to defend the country YOU’RE supposed to be in charge of, ring a bell, douchebag?
Geesus Chr*st on a cracker, just when I thought I couldn’t despise this man any more…
Posted by: CMS2004 at June 20, 2009 07:13 PM
I linked to some commentary and analysis from the military blog community yesterday on the Iranians’ aggression against our U.S. Navy over the weekend. Today I came across this post over at NRO THE TANK by Steve Schippert, who states that the show of aggression was more about trying to get the oil price raised in order to boost the Iranian economy, which depends solely on their oil revenue.
A lot of understandable unease – and significant misreading of events – today regarding the Iranian speedboat harassment and threats to U.S. Navy warships entering the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. Most of the initial public take has centered around the threat transmitted in English, “I am coming at you, and you will explode in a few minutes.” Quite understandable.
But from there, most public reactions have failed to identify proper context for the Iranian actions this weekend.
First, in a quote attributed to an unnamed official in the latest New York Times article on the incident, is the possibility of an Iranian probe, testing reactions and observable procedures for future reference. “Whether they’re just testing us to learn about our procedures, or actually trying to initiate an incident, we don’t know,” the Times quoted him as saying.
Second, and more importantly from a strategic view rather than tactical, is the Iranian leveraging of crisis and instability in the manipulation of sky-high crude oil prices, the only boost that exists in the Iranian economy.
Oil is flirting with $100 per barrel. Its average price in December dropped to just over $88 per barrel from over $92 average for the month of November. Incidents like this weekend’s serve to remind the global oil market of how fragile the supply route is, thus maintaining premium price for Iran’s only significant export and only significant source of revenue.
There almost certainly was never any true suicide ramming threat on the open Strait. But perceptions can be quite profitable.
One additional thought:
While a revolutionary Shi’a Iranian regime poses the greatest threat to regional Arab oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, its overtly threatening actions to US Naval vessels and statements threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz if attacked drives up alarm and oil prices for them as well. And this they enjoy with lucrative pleasure. For now.
For it’s a dangerous game of speculation they play of navigating the ‘gulf’ between international market perceptions of risk and a much lower level of threat actually perceived by the region’s predominantly Sunni Arab OPEC members.
And unless something drastically changes, this mutually beneficial market run will have finally fully funded the successful nuclear armament of the Iranian protagonists. And with that the ‘gulf’ between risk perception and threat reality will have narrowed substantially, and the game will be over. At that point, who played whom?
And it is so often said that it is American greed that is responsible for so much ill… Greed is universal. And the game being played is more dangerous than most apply thought to. Or so it seems from here today.
The Threats Watch analyses are pretty good, so I encourage you to check them out and go back there often for analysis in military matters.
UPDATE at 01:24 EST on 09 JAN 2008: Jules Crittenden has more good analysis:
In more ways than one. Iran has been testing U.S. defenses since 1979, and in almost every case has found them wanting. The exception, to some extent, has been Iraq, where Iranian agents have been held and Iranian goals for the present frustrated. Despite the existence of a Shiite-dominated government, Iraq has agreed in principle to a long-term strategic arrangement with the United States to include military bases. Short-term Shiites are dancing to an American tune, with al-Sistani long a voice of moderation, al-Sadr playing nice, al-Hakim talking up the Sunnis, and some elements of Shiite tribal leadership engaged in their own awakening.
None of that, long term, means any more than the notion that Iran has given up on nukes, which is to say, sure, if you think so. Iran is biding its time. Iran remains the elephant in the room of U.S. foreign policy, currently hidden under the throwrug of misrepresented NIE findings and surge-bought security. Imagine the possibilities under an Obama or a Huckabee presidency.
So why mess with success? It’s a minor incident, maybe just intended to remind the Americans re pending Iraq talks they still can be a nuisance. Maybe just to remind themselves exactly how complacent and short-sighted Americans really are. Maybe for domestic purposes. Maybe the Revolutionary Guard was just bored.
Or maybe … uh, let’s see … what else is going on this week that would make Iran want to call attention to itself, when all anyone in America cares about is the election and that’s going so well?
Oh yeah, that:
Gulf Daily News: Iran to overshadow Arab-Israeli Conflict
Ha’aretz: Hamas says Bush visit is about Iran, not Mideast peace
VOA: Bush says he will discuss Iran as well as Mideast peace
Sounds like Iran wants to be involved in the conversation.
Kevin Sullivan notes some people are already calling this a Persian Gulf of Tonkin. Hey, great idea, but don’t we need to exchange fire with the ghost boats first?
Gateway’s got your Iranian boat art, links.
UPDATE: via CBS/AP, RevGuard denies aggro approach, Mullah Foreign Ministry calls it “normal.” MFM has a point. Aggressive brinksmanship, absurd denials are entirely normal for Iran.
As usual, CNN plays fast and loose with the facts. But that is to be expected because of (1) their political agenda/bias and (2) their complete ignorance of anything to do with the U.S. military.
There are some great posts from U.S. Navy members/bloggers today on this incident.
My friend BULL NAV over at Op-For: IRGCN Trys to Lose Some Small Boats
CDR Salamandar: Pulling the Tiger’s Tail
Galrahn at Information Dissemination: 5th Fleet Focus: Standoff in the Straits
I tend to side with Bull on this, professional to the core in handling a tough situation. Could have turned ugly, didn’t, results speak loud and clear. We have some calls out to get some details, something about that CNN report doesn’t sound right, we’re guessing the guns were manned, locked, and loaded prior to any radio traffic if this indeed happened in the Strait, and this story is some reporter getting loose with the details.
[ … ]
The release confirms our identification of the ships involved.
We would encourage the Navy to release the audio recording of the radio transmissions. The Iranian response has set up a classic case of he said /she said over this incident, and it would do the Navy well, not to mention US policy well to establish US credibility, not only from an international political perspective but also for the domestic political crowd that is stupid enough to believe this could be the next Gulf of Tonkin incident. The release of the radio transmissions would discredit that parade of stupidity in analysis quickly, and highlight how thoughtless partisans must be to believe the officers and crews of our warships are looking for a shooting war 20 miles off the Iranian coast.
The IRGC is a terrorist organization by law in the United States. Law, not because of executive order, but because of Congressional vote. Thank Tom Lantos if you don’t like it, personally I thank him because I do think it was the right thing to do. When dealing with terrorists, understanding the battlefield is in the sphere of public opinion is just as important as understanding it is taking place in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. A recording of the radio transmission from the Iranians would be a bigger blow than what would have been produced filling 5 FACs with bullets from the USS Hopper (DDG 70).
Spook86 at In From the Cold: What Happened in the Strait?
[ … ] As noted in the CNN account, the IRGC has assumed control of Iranian naval operations in the Persian Gulf, following a trend noted throughout Tehran’s military.
Over the past 20 years, the IRGC has gained a greater share of Iran’s defense budget, and receives the newest hardware, while the regular military — often viewed as politically unreliable — still operates 1970s-era western equipment. The IRGC is now in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile force, its more modern air defenses (including SA-6 and SA-15) units, and its latest aircraft.
Given those trends, it’s no surprise that Tehran has given the IRGC control of naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz. And that will increase the chances for similar incidents in the future. While Iran’s “regular” Navy has often been professional in its operations (and even cooperative in resolving maritime issues), the IRGC is a completely different breed. In other words, the zealots and crazies are now in charge of Iran’s naval ops in one of the world’s most important waterways. Not a good sign, to say the least.
[ … ]
The Iranian Navy, or more specifically, IRGC naval forces, have carried out harassment operations in the past. While details of Saturday’s incident remain sketchy, it does not sound like a rehearsal of the “swarm” tactics that IRGC forces would use against western naval forces in an actual conflict.
Utilizing that approach, dozens of small craft — some as small a jet skis — would attempt to engage western combatants at close range — inside the effective range of the vessels’ major weapons systems — using everything from RPGs to mines. The swarm attack could also provide cover for strikes by other weapons, including C-802 anti-ship missiles launched by shore batteries or aircraft. By damaging (or sinking) major naval combatants or support vessels, the Iranians believe they can close the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shutting off much of the world’s oil supply.
Word of the incident in the Strait came only days after a reported decrease in the flow of weapons from Iran, to insurgents in Iraq. But, with release of the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program (and perceptions that an American military strike is less likely), elements of Iran’s defense establishment may feel emboldened, and willing to test the reactions of U.S. forces in the region.
People sometimes ask me why I don’t bother with Leftists when it comes to discussing the war effort or military matters. Michelle Malkin provides an example. The extent of the analysis from the Left is to blame President Bush (as they do with absolutely everything) and shout “Gulf of Tonkin!!!” So don’t anyone try to tell me that the Left and/or Democrats take these types of things seriously. They are immature children and are to be ignored on serious matters of world affairs.
So I suggest you check out some of the blogs above and also read their comments sections as many military members and military veterans usually chime in with a lot of knowledge and great analysis.
So my elected representative to the Senate, the partisan hack Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) wrote a misleading Op-Ed in the LA Times this past week, full of disinfomation, misinformation and some flat out lies. The Military Blogs have been busy dubunking Senator Levin’s partisan nonsense. Two great posts were by Scott Malensek at Flopping Aces and Dadmanly at his blog Dadmanly, and cross-posted at Mudville Gazette’s Milblogs. In addition, John Hinderaker has a great post at Power Line Blog:
Go read those first for some background. They completely dismantle the misleading and flat out lying tripe that Senator Levin propagates to the masses. Granted, it is not surprising, as Senator Levin has been doing this for years. However, the unfortunate reality is that most Americans are ignorant dolts and will believe Senator Levin’s statements in the Op-Ed based on their utter lack of knowledge of facts and history. In addition to the fact that Senator Levin sits on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, so most naive Americans would assume that Senator Levin knows what he is talking about and is putting out a completely factual and non-biased account in his Op-Ed.
Well, you know what they say about people who ass-u-me things.
Today, Scott Malensek has another great post at Flopping Aces: Saddam’s Ties to Al Qaeda Debunked? in which he wades through all the political BS to get to the facts:
“Collaborative Operational Relationship” seems to be the words that started the idea that Saddam and Al Queda would never work together to attack the US, but those three words are cherry-picked from the comment as a whole-a comment that hinges on the precursory words, “we have seen no evidence.” These are repeated again in the very next sentence, “Nor have we seen evidence….”
At first glance it sounds like the commission members are saying that no evidence exists, but that’s not it at all as some of the 911 Commission members later elaborated.
“John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released.”There may well be–and probably will be–additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as–nor meant to be — the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities.””
Upon seeing just a glimpse of the 18% of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured from Saddam’s regime, 911 Commission member, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) said,
“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”
Other 911 Commission members have spoken out as well and made clear that the lack of evidence cited in their report was a reference to a lack of evidence gathered. That word, “gathered” come directly from the CIA reports and other intelligence agency reports regarding Saddam’s Ties upon which the 911 Commission was using to make its assessments.
Mr. Malensek then goes on to highlight the 11 Intelligence reports which reveal consistencies on only a few things:
They all refuse to form a conclusion
They all say there was a relationship, but the depth of it is debated inside the intelligence community
They all say the matter should be looked into rather than dismissed, closed, or perpetuated as a resolved point of discussion.
Mr. Malensek then asks a great question: with all the petty political investigations the Congress conducts (*cough* 8 fired US attorneys *cough*), why hasn’t Congress demanded an investigation into the most crucial information of our time: the extent of the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Malensek concludes:
We the American people must demand that an investigation into the depth of the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Bin Laden’s terrorist network be conducted and conclusions that should have been made before the war finally be made. At a time of war with the remnants of both enemies, how can responsible legislators and a dedicated intelligence community continue to refuse to investigate this? The answer is simple, the legislators who deny the 3 commonalities listed earlier and who dismiss the relationship are simply not responsible legislators.
The absolute denial of politicians who continue to falsely claim that there was no relationship at all between Al Queda and Saddam’s regime are either inept beyond acceptability if they have not read the reports listed above, or they are flat out liars if they have read those reports and are dismissing the nature of those who seek to kill Americans; our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians who claim the war in Iraq is “separate from the war on terror” (where every single soldier and Marine killed or wounded since 5/1/03 has been killed in an attack using terrorist tactics) are either completely uninformed by the US military (ignoring or turning down military briefings and intelligence reports), or they are acting in direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the conduct of this war for little more than penciled in circles on ballots every other year.
Additionally, an intelligence community that continues to take a lackadaisical approach to the matter is not properly dedicated at all levels, but rather as politicized and ideologically divided as Congress. The events of 911, the intelligence failures of the Iraq War, the surprise collapse of the Soviet Union, high level spies infiltrating the CIA and FBI, and so much more all serve as examples to the American people of an intelligence community packed with people who are more concerned about saying the politically correct thing in the political capital of the world than they are about forming a conclusion on who the enemy of the United States is and has been.
Saddam is dead. He was a criminal. He was a mass murderer. He was a tyrant, and he was a liar. Why take his word? Americans spend $40 billion to $100 billion a year for 16 different intelligence agencies, and yet rather than get a conclusion based on the intelligence collection and analysis from those any of those 15 agencies, the American people are told to believe Saddam because they are afraid of presenting unpleasant conclusions on a matter that is at least 4 yrs old, and more accurately 15 years old.
That’s not acceptable. America didn’t pay $160 billion dollars to get told just take Saddam’s word for it. It’s time to conduct a real investigation, and a form a real conclusion – a conclusion from intelligence agencies not political committees acting as intelligence agencies.
Amen to that, Mr. Malensek. Well said. Unfortunately, I am afraid that our government (not to mention our watchdog media) is completely corrupted with power and completely emasculated by Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Moral Relativism that we have no one with the courage to do what most Americans demand. I hope I am wrong though.
I echo the statements of Charles Johnson: are these people completely insane? And what does this also say about Democrat-voters. If modern liberals, leftists, so-called “progressives” and Democrat-voters all support this, they are clinically insane, in my opinion, as well.Also, keep in mind the Left is completely against the United States using nuclear power to ween us off oil. Yet, they are all for letting everyone else, including the world’s enemies and fanatical Islamic countries hell-bent on destroying Israel and the United States, having access to it. At least they are consistent. They are also against the United States drilling in its own Gulf (or in ANWR), yet have no problem with China and Venezuela doing it.
Via Charles Johnson at LGF: Et Tu, Lantos?
I have to admit, I’m stunned at these statements from Tom Lantos. I thought he was one of the few remaining principled Democrats; but now it’s clear that he’s just as willing as any of them to sacrifice everything he stands for to achieve political power — even if it means the most craven, suicidal appeasement of the sworn enemies of America: Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran.
Lantos said that for more than a decade, he has been trying to obtain a visa to visit Tehran with the help of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan — and to date neither he nor any other member of Congress has been successful.Pelosi said that throughout the congressional delegation’s recent Middle East trip, “every place we went we had a constant message: the safety and security of Israel, fighting terrorism.”
“There was, of course, a shadow over all of it, Iran: Iran’s support of terrorist groups is something that must be stopped,” she said. “Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon is something that must not happen and we must stop them with the strongest of diplomatic measures.”
Lantos noted that “with the speaker’s support,” he has co-sponsored legislation in the House that calls for making available to all countries — including Iran — nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under international oversight by establishing a “nuclear fuel bank.”
“So if the Iranian president says that he is developing (nuclear material) for peaceful purposes, we are assisting him in that process,” said Lantos, who anticipated the legislation could pass as early as May.
Are these people completely insane?
Also, keep in mind how well it worked out for us when we gave nuclear fuel to North Korea for “peaceful purposes”. Apparently, the Democrats have not learned the lesson from the mistakes made by the Clinton Administration.