The Other McCain : Page 2290 : "One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up."

John McCain’s Idiotic Advice on Libya

Posted on April 18, 2011April 18, 2011Comments

Obama never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by tax increases. By the same token, John McCain never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by more bombing:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday he feared a “stalemate” has developed in Libya that would lead to a more radical government in that country.
McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. should revive its air attacks to incapacitate forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.
“All we need to do is get sufficient air power in there to really nail Gadhafi’s forces, and we can succeed,” McCain said on KFYI radio. “A stalemate is a terrible outcome, because if you have a stalemate you open the door for radical Islamists to come in and hijack this revolution.”

OK, maybe some of my more hawkish friends will have no problem with Crazy Cousin John’s dubious use of the first-person plural (“we can succeed”), but exactly how much bombing does he suppose will be necessary to allow the half-assed Libyan rebels to defeat Qaddafi?

Tuesday will be the one-month anniversary of the start of “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” and in the past four weeks the rebels have demonstrated their absolute dearth of military ability. You could assemble any random group of 2,000 JROTC cadets, issue them the same weapons possessed by the Libyan rebels and expect a better results.

I’ll defer to the good advice of Geraldo Rivera (“I swear to god, if you give these people weapons more powerful than they have right now, they will be a grave danger to themselves and others”) because at least Geraldo has seen the rebels first-hand. John McCain just sits around stateside and yells, “Bombs away!”

While I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that Qaddafi will soon be overthrown (perhaps by a military coup), it should be bloody obvious by now what’s gone wrong in Libya:

After the relatively quick and easy ouster of Mubarak in Egypt, Obama got the idea that Qaddafi could be overthrown just as easily.
The French were, for some unknown reason (perhaps related to Sarkozy’s domestic political situation), very eager to see Qaddafi overthrown, and started militating for a NATO-led intervention.
Like some other American presidents of recent memory, Obama listened to advisers who told him this foreign adventure was going to be a cakewalk — a chance to “look presidential.”
With little or no accurate intelligence about the Libyan rebels, and with a U.N. Security Council mandate for “humanitarian” intervention, Obama then approved a limited short-term U.S. military action, thinking that would be sufficient to tip the balance against Qaddafi.

Well, guess what? It was a bad idea.

Either we go to war or we don’t. You can’t halfway fight a war. Either we should have resolved to do whatever was needed to overthrow Qaddafi, or we never should have gotten involved in what is, after all, somebody else’s civil war.

And another thing: Odyssey Dawn? What the hell kind of name is that for a military operation? Sounds like a disco cover band in lime-green leisure suits playing the Holiday Inn circuit in 1975.

At this point, then, I’d say Obama’s got two choices:

Either resolve to win this thing at all costs; or
Leave it to the Europeans and blame it all on Hillary Clinton.

Whatever you do, Mr. President, don’t listen to John McCain. He’s crazy, you know. Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr!

UPDATE: Peter Heck at American Thinker:

I’m hoping someone can help me. I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing. . . . Although I’ve found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama’s Libyan War is officially missing in action.

Exactly. If Obama’s Excellent Libyan Adventure had led to the quick toppling of Qaddafi and the liberation of Libya, the MSM stood ready to pronounce this a stunning triumph for the Commander-in-Chief. Now that it’s beginning to look like a complete botch, they can scarcely be bothered to notice.

Meanwhile, here’s the latest video report from Misrata:

Well, Of Course: 14-Year-Old Wisconsin Tea Party Speaker Is Home-Schooler

Posted on April 18, 2011Comments

When I saw this video at Ann Althouse’s blog (hat-tip, Instapundit), I did some quick searching and learned that Tricia Willoughby is a home-schooler and debate champion, one of three daughters of Wisconsin pro-life leaders Bret and Nancy Willoughby:

As the father of six home-schooled kids myself, I’m very proud to see Miss Willoughby’s poise as a public speaker. However, she twice uses “enormity” in an incorrect sense. The word has a negative connotation: “an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act . . . the quality or state of being immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous; especially: great wickedness.” While authorities differ on whether “enormity” can be used to signify large size (“enormousness” is preferred), using the word “enormity” to signify the momentous nature or historical import of an event one wishes to portray as positive (as Miss Willoughby does in reference to the Boston Tea Party) is always wrong.

Let’s hope that Miss Willoughby doesn’t mind this brief vocabulary lesson. Certainly, it is more well-intentioned than the vocabulary lesson offered by a certain Wisconsin union thug:

You can tell he’s a public-school alumnus: His vocabulary seems to be comprised chiefly of monosyllabic words with four letters.

VIDEO: World’s Least Excitable Redneck Captures North Carolina Tornado

Posted on April 18, 2011April 18, 2011Comments

Listen to him talking to his wife on the phone: “Oh, half a mile. . . . I’d say it’s coming straight towards me.” And he never sounds even remotely excited about it, much less scared:

It is reported that the man with the camera, Steven Hoag, explained his eerie calm thus: “I was a Marine and I love Jesus.”

Via Tabitha Hale, Mary Katharine Ham and John Noonan on Twitter. In response to the video, Noonan says, “God I love the South.”

I’m reminded of the story of a Tennessee soldier in Archer’s Brigade at Gettysburg. As they lay in the woods awaiting the orders to send them forward in the assault that would become known as Pickett’s Charge, the men watched as a rabbit — evidently frightened by the artillery barrage — took off running across the battlefield. The Tennessean laconically remarked: “Go on and run, rabbit. If I was a rabbit, I’d run, too.”

Hollywood Rocked by Another Shocking Natalie Portman Body-Double Scandal

Posted on April 18, 2011April 18, 2011Comments

Let’s see: Politics, taxes, Libya — yep, I’ve covered all those insignificant trivial stories today. Time for some really important news:

Her dance double for Black Swan has claimed that she did hardly any of the full body shots seen in the film.
And now it is claimed that Natalie Portman used yet another body double for her latest film Your Highness.
In fact, the actress is said to have avoided diving into an icy lake in Belfast and a local Irish girl was paid just £250 to take the plunge instead.
Caroline Davis from Ulster was paid the sum of money to jump into the cold waters meaning that Portman avoided braving the freezing lake.
The Irish student told The Sun: ‘I’m a film studies student so I jumped at the chance to be on set.’

In the interest of getting to the bottom of this scandal, I’m obliged to provide these photos to let readers examine the evidence for themselves:

While you study the evidence — and trust me, I’ve examined it very closely myself — I’ll share some other important news: Gary Busey got fired from Celebrity Apprentice:

UPDATE: Ace of Spades reviewed Your Highness:

I think Natalie Portman’s butt, which you see a lot (at least in a tiny thong), is in fact CGI.

This will require more careful study of the images. Meanwhile, Jimmie Bise Jr. predicts the Internet reaction to this shocking news:

UPDATE II: Yes, Professor Glenn Reynolds, I’m calling you a cynic. Because if you were an altruistic idealist, you would have linked me. (Life in an egocentric universe — where the only standard is whether I get more blog-traffic — makes such moral distinctions very simple.)

‘Mission Creep’ in Libya: Cameron Won’t Rule Out Use of British Ground Troops

Posted on April 18, 2011April 18, 2011Comments

The London Telegraph reports:

The Prime Minister insisted that there would be no “occupation” of Libya, but repeatedly refused to rule out short-lived ground-level operations by British forces. Mr Cameron’s words, in a television interview, led to renewed warnings of “mission creep” in Libya. . . .
It is understood that British Special Forces soldiers are already operating inside Libya and some military experts have suggested those troops could be asked to help train and lead rebel forces. . . .
Mr Cameron said that restriction had complicated the Western intervention. “Because we’ve said we’re not going to invade, we’re not going to occupy, this is more difficult in many ways,” he said.
Asked if he was categorically ruling out putting any form of British forces on the ground in the Libya, Mr Cameron replied: “What I’ve said is there is no occupying force, no invasion. The position hasn’t changed.”
Asked whether a “temporary” ground operation was possible, he said: “I’ve answered the question. We’re not occupying, we’re not invading.”
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said Mr Cameron had opened up the possibility of British ground forces operating in Libya. “The PM’s words need careful interpretation. ‘Occupation’ necessarily implies large numbers of troops being in Libya for a substantial period of time,” he said.

So, no “occupation,” but perhaps some more British troops to help stiffen the rebels. My colleague Wombat complained this morning about the difficulty of figuring out the military situation in Libya based on news accounts, which are at times wildly contradictory. Yesterday, I highlighted the artillery attack on Ajdabiya by Qaddafi’s forces. Here is a very informative video report filed yesterday by Al-Jazeera:

As of this morning, according to Bloomberg News, it appears that the rebels repulsed the attack by Qaddafi’s forces and are currently holding on at Ajdabiya.

UPDATE: By the way, I was just discussing on Twitter the fact that Al-Jazeera’s reporting on the Libya war has been quite good — which isn’t an admission I enjoy making, but there has been a shortage of clear, intelligible reporting, and so I’m grateful for what there is.

Speaking of grudging admissions, the New York Times has covered itself in glory with C.J. Chivers’s reporting from Libya. Chivers actually made it into besieged Misrata, where one of his blog updates included this:

A quick note: we have a terrible satellite connection here, and that and the ongoing battle beside the building we are working in has made swift updates difficult. Please excuse the delays.

That earned Chivers “Excuse of the Week” honors, according to Thomas Ricks at Foreign Policy, who recommends Chivers for a Pulitzer. I second that commendation, and add this advice for NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger: Fire Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman and David Brooks, and give Chivers a raise.

Tax Day 2011

Posted on April 18, 2011Comments

It is no small irony that Tax Day came late this year because on Friday, Washington, D.C., celebrated “Emancipation Day.” The Lonely Conservative:

Isn’t it nice to know that so many of our fellow Americans pay no federal taxes?

The Associated Press article linked does not make clear that most of these non-taxpayers are low-income households, many of whom are exempted from taxation because of the child tax credits that are the one part of the “Bush tax cuts” nobody ever seems to talk about. As a father of six (our youngest was born in 2002, the year the credits took effect) I love those credits!

As for the Obama idea that we can balance the budget by hiking taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” — hey, do they teach math at Harvard Law School?

If there are any guilt-stricken billionaires out there who think their taxes are too low, just hit my tip jar. It’s for the children!

‘Civility’ and Professor Krugman

Posted on April 18, 2011April 18, 2011Comments

Paul Krugman lives in a universe where reality is whatever liberals say it is. And he is now concerned that Democrats are being too civil. Without seeming to grasp the irony, Krugman writes:

Eventually, of course, America must choose between these differing visions. And we have a way of doing that. It’s called democracy.
Now, Republicans claim that last year’s midterms gave them a mandate for the vision embodied in their budget. But last year the G.O.P. ran against what it called the “massive Medicare cuts” contained in the health reform law. How, then, can the election have provided a mandate for a plan that not only would preserve all of those cuts, but would go on, over time, to dismantle Medicare completely?
For what it’s worth, polls suggest that the public’s priorities are nothing like those embodied in the Republican budget. Large majorities support higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Large majorities — including a majority of Republicans — also oppose major changes to Medicare. Of course, the poll that matters is the one on Election Day. But that’s all the more reason to make the 2012 election a clear choice between visions.

In other words, last year’s mid-term elections — in which Republicans scored their biggest net gain of House seats since 1938 — were a “mandate” only insofar as it means what Paul Krugman says it means. (He is recycling an Associated Press story from April 13.) If nothing else, the election was a negative referendum on ObamaCare, but Krugman won’t accept that.

As for Krugman’s assertion that the Ryan budget would “dismantle Medicare completely,” Krugman’s just playing the old “Medi-scare” game as a way to demand a do-over on last year’s election. Instead of 2010 having been “a clear choice,” the professor says, let’s make that choice in 2012.

But if last year’s election was not “a clear choice,” we have only Democrats to blame. In district after district, Democrats ran ads accusing Republicans of advocating “tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.” And then there was the Democrats’ assertion that the GOP was funded by “secret foreign donors.” So Krugman evidently fears that Democrats who spent millions of dollars promoting dishonest smears in 2010 are now in danger of becoming too “civil.”

Professor Krugman evidently wants Democrats in Washington to mimic the tactics of Wisconsin Democrats, who resort to burglary to prevent a “clear choice” and also attempt to shut down Republicans with incoherent shouting.

LIVE AT FIVE – 04.18.11

Posted on April 18, 2011April 17, 2011Comments

TOP NEWS
45 Dead As Tornadoes Pound South, Midwest

More evidence of global warming! — Sanford, NC Lowe's employee stands in the store's parking lot

Tornado weather could persist through Easter

Libyan Fighting Rages; Press In As Much Disarray As Rebels
Does anybody really know WTF is going on? The press sure doesn’t

TEPCO Lays Out Plan For Stabilizing Fukushima Reactors
Crisis management over; utility plans to have reactors completely shut down in nine months

POLITICS
TurboTax Timmy Claims GOP Leaders Support Debt Limit Increase