Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Indeed (subtitled "All He Wants To Do Is Dance")
That was just one or two pictures of the same event.
The multiple photos of multiple events this week tell it all, but no American media are bothering to show you--never mind be outraged about it. No, it's only the Europeans showing you that, after this:
...and this:
...and this:
...and this:
(...and 6 Americans are still missing, two days after the attack??...)
...after all that, came this:
...and this:
...and then this:
...and this:
...and finally this:
Now who's acting un-Presidential?
Who's the "elitist", again?
The truth is, as proven by his actions over this: The President doesn't give a rat's ass about any American who loses life or limb to an Islamic terrorist:
Just change the pronoun and Don Henley got it right, 31 years ago:
"He can't feel the heat comin' off the street / He wants to partayy... he wants to get dowwwn..."What's good for the GWB should be good for the BO, or else you're just a hypocrite, like your media. If you voted for BO, you should be appalled and ashamed, right about now. And then you should do something about it.
Imagine being a family member of one of those nine Americans? And your President spends just 51 seconds on your despair, the tragedy of your lifetimes, then heads out for fun in the sun, does The Wave, grins like a damn fool at a baseball game, then Tangoes the night away in Argentina, copping a great look down the cleavage of a much-lither-than-Michelle bronze beauty, sipping champagne and having a grand old time, all in the name of "diplomacy", while you are dissolved in tears on the floor of your bedroom or the nearest State Department office, trying to reach or even learn if your loved one is safe or even alive?
And you really still wonder why a reality-TV tycoon who's had it up to here with Washington-Politics-Business-As-Usual becomes an overnight popular candidate for both Republicans and Democrats??
A side note but on the subject of the media giving Democrats the hugest passes for their atrocious words and behaviors---why isn't Bill Clinton smeared as a racist for saying this? Seems he has never let go of his true feelings about who would've not only gotten his coffee but also carried his bags, and you know if it was a Republican saying any of that, the tar and feathers would be on him or her already. But Bill, Barack, et.al. just skate on by.
But the one question we all need to ask ourselves, right now, is, "Who will we really be safest with, as President?"
Hillary? Think again.
Bernie? When uber-left-leaning Politico and The Daily Beast both trash his foreign policy/ISIS-strategy ideas as recently as two months ago?
Don't you think ISIS' (and all jihadic groups') leaders and rank-and-file terrorists are laughing at how easy it will be for them, if Hillary or Bernie become President, to do here over the next four to eight years what they've done in Paris, Brussels and countless other places?
Because as we're following in the footsteps of the Europe of ten years ago, it's only a matter of about those few years, before Nous Vraiment Sommes Paris, and Nous Vraiment Sommes Bruxelles.Then what do you do? Really: what do you do when hundreds or thousands of terrorists are living in cells/neighborhoods next door, next town? It's almost too late, then.
And the left-leaning media lambastes Ted Cruz for calling for a revisiting of the legal, successful New York Mayor Bloomberg program that the liberal susccessor DeBlasio disbanded, natch:
In a 2012 article for Commentary magazine, Mitchell D. Silber takes on the AP’s criticism [of the NYPD’s counter-terrorism efforts under Bloomberg] with an astounding point-by-point admonishment of their take. The entire article is well worth revisiting, especially in light of the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels, but here a few key points.Add to that idea another great and necessary one, by a former devout Muslim who probably has the best answer to it all, here. After you read what he proposes, go watch why he's qualified to do so.
...
Silber writes: "Only public locations were visited. Doing so was perfectly within the purview of the NYPD." Critics of the program object to police being in public places, observing public situations. Let’s understand this clearly. Critics of the program, apparently including the Pulitzer committee, object to police being in public places, observing public situations. Where are they supposed to be? In some kind of game show silent tank? Unable to deal with crime or acts of war until they have already occurred? This is madness. It’s not a game show; it doesn’t have to be fair.On criticisms that the NYPD had no real results to show for its program: “the Demographics Unit was critical in identifying the Islamic Books and Tapes bookstore in Brooklyn as a venue for radicalization. Information the unit collected about the store provided a predicate for an investigation that thwarted a 2004 plot against the Herald Square subway station. The unit also played a role in forming the initiation of an investigation that led to the 2008 identification ofAbdel Hameed Shehadeh, a New Yorker who was arrested and is currently facing federal charges for allegedly lying about his plans to travel to Afghanistan in order to kill U.S. servicemen.”
But hey, that’s only two examples. I’m a New Yorker, so now and then I find myself at the Herald Square subway station. I’d prefer that the NYPD pursue relevant information regarding terrorist attacks there before I take my kid to see Santa at Macy’s. This is just common sense—a quality that has been lost in the quantity of big talk that has distracted us so completely.
...
But in predicting, or anticipating, potentially catastrophic actions by terrorists, law enforcement is playing defense, not offense. These methods aren’t new. They were used to take down the Mafia. But in 1980, nobody in the liberal press was insisting that if you are investigating the Mafia you need just as many cameras in Bed Stuy and the Upper East Side as in Little Italy and Bensonhurst. You got to go where the game is. [my emphasis]
...
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this scrutiny into Cruz’s sober and reasonable opinion is the scrutiny himself. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders gaffe at will. Donald Trump takes three positions contradicting each other in a news cycle and the bobble heads keep bobbling. But Cruz is subjected to a soul-searching deep dive every time he puts on his boots. It’s like he’s the presidential candidate defending his PhD dissertation.The tragedies in Paris and Brussels show us that we need more, not less of former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelley’s approach to counter-terrorism. Cruz is right to cite his example. Honestly, folks, that’s all he was saying. He wasn’t calling for balaclava-bearing Special Ops to target shop owners in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. He was calling for a return to a policy that recognizes the unique challenge terrorism presents. [my emphasis]
HT's to The Blaze and The Intercept for many of these clips.
posted by Annie at 2:36 PM
