It's Just a Girl's Deconstruction of Chaos Thing

Dear America,

so welcome back.

welcome to a new day -- or is it?

Just link the last blog with this blog, and vow to never break the chain.

Via Fox News, just yesterday:

"I know it's tempting

inside of Egypt

to blame the United States

or the West

or some other outside actor

for what's gone wrong.

We've been blamed by

supporters of Morsi.

We've been blamed by

the other side

as if we are supporters of Morsi --

That kind of approach

will do nothing

to help Egyptians

 achieve the future

that they deserve." 

President Obama

 

 

Acknowledging the "incoherent" policy under this administration -- the mixed messages, the playing to both sides, the contrived presidential pause to pose a few measured remarks on the chaos in Egypt even in the midst of his seasonal, highly elitist, retreat (escaping the pressures of commanding over the  "ordinary people," of course)     --  even the president admits he's a textbook case.

 

 

Just notice how he makes it about us even while he says it's all about them, the Egyptians.

But the truth of the matter is, we are still sending billions of dollars in aid to Egypt  --  and for what?  To who? How is this money, provided by the American taxpayer, being used or, perhaps more appropriately, abused?

From a place called Defense One -- under the post written by Stephanie Gaskell, The Pentagon Has Lost Its Leverage With Egypt, Now What?:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been on the phone with his Egyptian counterpart, Gen. Abdul Fattah al-Sissi, almost every day since the July 3 military ouster of President Mohamed Morsi. And every day he has urged the Egyptian defense minister to find a peaceful resolution to the political turmoil. He’s called al-Sissi at least 15 times since the military booted Morsi from power, a Pentagon official told Defense One.

By all accounts, al-Sissi had agreed. Just last week, Hagel hung up the phone with Cairo and was reassured that the Egyptian military wanted a peaceful transition. "Minister Al-Sisi underscored his commitment to peaceful resolution of the ongoing protests, and thanked Secretary Hagel for U.S. support,” the Pentagon said, in a description of the Aug. 5 phone call.

This is a peaceful resolution, a peaceful transition, a peaceful Egypt?

And isn't all of this something --  considering the highly suspect, and extraordinary premature, liberal elitist response in wishing the president's vision for hope and change would be hastily masterminded, translated, and manufactured out of thin air, simply by virtue of awarding a Nobel Peace Prize before he even completed his first year of office.  Oh the hopes! -- "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to come true!

We jinxed it.

From BBC News, US credibility 'in tatters' Over Egypt Crisis...

Since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, the US has struggled to strike a balance between support for the tenuous progress towards democracy and protection of its national security interests.

Is the goal really to strike a balance?  Seriously?
How about we try standing on principle with regards to international and national security interests?

How about we just try being consistent?  We meddled and intervened with Hosni Mubarak...we didn't leave it for the people of Egypt to decide way back when... we kinda set this scenario up, didn't we?  didn't we?

By the way, if you so choose to link into that BBC post -- a photo showing President Obama with an Ayatollah beard attached is embedded about half way down, with the caption "President Obama has faced criticism from both sides in the Egypt crisis."   I wonder if the NAACP, or the Justice Department, will investigate it as a hate crime (pick a side)?   [And while we're at it -- snaps to Michelle Malkin here and here.]

The BBC post ends with nothing but emphasis upon international policy meeting clarity :

"I think it's time for the United States to recognise that what we have here is the restoration of a military dictatorship in Cairo," said Tamara Wittes from the Brookings Institution, and a former State Department official working on Middle East democracy issues during the first Obama administration.

"That means that the United States needs to call these events what they are - under American law it needs to suspend assistance to the Egyptian government because this was a military coup and it is a military regime."

No gray area there:  "under American law it needs to suspend assistance to the Egyptian government because this was a military coup and it is a military regime."   Besides -- as  Mr. President "America cannot determine the future of Egypt" Obama and Mr. Press Secretary "this is up for the Egyptians to answer" Carney have outright said -- the Egyptians can handle things all on their own.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to leave it alone.

Indeed.
Which reminds me of this great nations first intentions when it comes to international relations, encapsulating the ideals of our founding fathers who magnificently recognized that this day would come.

From my favorite book in the whole wide world, The 5000 Year Leap, by W.Cleon Skousen -- quoting Washington:

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations.  Cultivate peace and harmony with all.  Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?  It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than the permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated.  The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.  It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

At the close of the chapter, Avoid Entangling Alliances, Skousen poses this:

Looking back, one cannot help wondering how much happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous the world would be if the United States had been following a policy of "separatism" as the world's great peacemaker instead of "internationalism" as the world's great policeman.

Something to ponder, isn't it...

In any event, what the times require is to stand on principle -- even if we must go back 238 years to find it.

But then there's this --
and now returning to the "Incoherent" Obama policy post from Fox News (yes, back to where we began the day) --  which positions John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under W, for argument support:

Bolton said the wisest thing for the president to do would be to not say much at all. He claimed that the reality for the U.S. is that the best option is for the Egyptian military to stay in control, "ugly as it may be." The Muslim Brotherhood, he said, is an "armed militia" and not a political party.

Indeed.  "Ugly as it may be" -- there is that; with a bloody Nile to prove it.

But Oh "to not say much at all."
What are the chances?

Make it a Good Day, G

It's Going Over the Rainbow and the Red Line Thing

Dear America,

EXCLUSIVE: 

Saudi Arabia

'warned the United States

IN WRITING

about Boston Bomber

 Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012'

seriously?

but can I hear an amen and a super big thank you to the Daily Mail for bringing it to us...it's not like our lamestream media wants any part of this, right, let alone this administration...

Can you say 'big cover up' going on right about now?

WE WERE WARNED, and warned IN WRITING.  Now, if you haven't already done so,  just go back up to that headline up there and click into the full article from the Daily Mail in order to read every horrific detail for yourself, and then weep.

And speaking of big cover ups and even larger than life shut ups -- how about this stunning activity?

Go to the Whistle Blower, here.

Go to James Rosen's investigative piece...detailing the clear and present danger if one were to, say, provide, give, of your own free will -- even if it subjects the expert witness to loss of job and life itself --- any additional testimony on Benghazi.... here

Rosen quotes the president, saying:

“I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody has been blocked from testifying,” the president said during a White House news conference on Tuesday. “So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to.”

yeah right, check.
and he's gonna get right on that, check check.

[that there was just a little Bullock, Birdee, rewrite from Hope Floats...but no bother, carry on]

And really, what is going on with the whole Syria thing?

Is there a red line, or is there not a red line?  Just a girl really, really wants to know as it's looking more like pink.

And you know... call me silly like to party all the time... but doesn't backing down from the red line -- even when its to really really confirm the truth -- just make us look stupid, weak, like we haven't the bull's balls to follow through on anything?  

I hate that.

I hate somebody mouthing off, all puffed chest and spitting nails, like they are bigger than life and everybody should just back off with just the threat alone,  and then -- just at the moment we have "confirmation," complete with red lights, red flags, red shoes, red lipstick, Red Sea raging and all  --  does nothing.

And Super Elle Snaps to John Bolton for his perspective on this -- and available just for you courtesy of WND Radio  here.

"Having set the red line, not to follow through on the implicit threat to do something when the Assad regime crosses the red line is a terrible blow to the president’s credibility and, even worse, to the United States itself. It’s unfortunate, but it fits a pattern for this president, that he speaks in national security matters and he doesn’t fully understand the implications of what he says. I’m trying to be charitable and diplomatic here. And then when he crashes into reality, that’s when he begins to think through the implications of what he said, rather than thinking first and speaking later."

Bombers, Benghazi, and Blunders, oh my.

let's sing, you know the tune:

Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high,
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby.

 

Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue,
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true.

 

Someday I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far
Behind me.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me.

 

Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?

If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?

So it was hummingbirds yesterday, bluebirds today (with, of course, a cameo of "Birdee Calvert-Pruitt") -- guess the 'G thing' is going to the birds this week.
 
Always like a theme.

But it's funny the way that works in real life;  just never know what IT IS until I'm in it. 
It's like I step in it or something ... kinda like the president.   ooooh burn      notice.

and yes. safe to say, g flew right smack dab into a cuckoo's nest this morning.   didn't see that coming.   but if you happen to have ammo for that gun, shoot me.

Make it a Good Day, G