October 5, 2013

"[T]he simultaneous attacks are bound to fuel accusations that the administration was eager for a showy victory."

Says the NYT, reporting on the U.S. military operations in Libya and Somalia today.
Officials said the timing of the two raids was coincidental...

But at a moment when President Obama’s popularity is flagging under the weight of his standoff with Congressional Republicans and his leadership criticized for his reversal in Syria, the simultaneous attacks are bound to fuel accusations that the administration was eager for a showy victory.

38 comments:

St. George said...

"Showy"

adjective

1. having a striking appearance or style, typically by being excessively bright, colorful, or ostentatious.
"showy flowers"

Fabulous raid, general. Fabulous.

MrCharlie2 said...

Simultaneous raids? Shutdown a ploy to lull the enemy? Time for Boehner to break the log jam, implying that he was in on it.

FullMoon said...

Maybe I am cynical, but the Libya guy doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and the Seals in Somalia were driven back before they could confirm a kill.

Also, the article states Libya is lawless and a magnet and safe haven for terrorist.

I am almost ready to believe we should have left Gaddafi alone.

AND that makes me wonder how the world would be if we did not stab the Shah of Iran in the back.

Johanna Lapp said...

When Bill Clinton needed to distract attention from domestic scandals, bombing furriners was his Plan A. Empty tents in Afghanistan, a medicine factory in Sudan, a Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

Did advice from Bill and Hillary! inspire this sad, empty gesture?

wholelottasplainin' said...

Among the Seals who have to carry these things out, they are known as "Operation Squirrel".

Hagar said...

Verrry interesting.

They can readily arrest a militant not connected to "the Benghazi incident" in Tripoli, but cannot get "the Libyan government's permission" to go where they might the known participants in the Benghazi attack walking freely around in Libya.

So, who is telling the Libyan government not to give "permission"?

Hagar said...

... find ...

kimsch said...

Wag the dog.

kimsch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St. George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St. George said...

Nice piece in a recent New Yorker about the Somali ex-pat who returned from London to Mogadishu to open a gourmet restaurant.

It's so popular people are blowing themselves up to get in.

elkh1 said...

Would be more showy if he bombed Iran, or even Syria.

We were led to believe Libya was a showy democracy after he helped the Islamists get rid of Gadhafi, a really showy guy. Now, why did he raid Libya? Why didn't he raid Syria and get rid of Assad before notifying Putin?

Funny thing, he tried to divert attention from his endless scandals: NSA snooping, IRS targeting, Benghazi cover-up..., by threatening to bomb Assad. Then he tried to divert attention from his miserable failure there by picking a fight with the spineless Republicans... Now he pivots to foreign adventures again... He is getting a whiplash.

elkh1 said...

Wouldn't it be nice if he could make that gutsy call to kill Osama again?

Unknown said...

If they properly interrogate these terrorists the the operation may have been worth risking the lives of American warfighters. But if they send the the scum to NY and give them lawyers we would have been better off using cruise missiles.
Better yet, let's pack up and go home.

prairie wind said...

Is there anything he can't do wrong?

Do I know that for sure about these two operations? I suppose the technical answer is No, since I didn't read the article but it's a safe bet.Is there anything he has gotten right?

prairie wind said...

Is there anything he can't do wrong?

Do I know that for sure about these two operations? I suppose the technical answer is No, since I didn't read the article but it's a safe bet.Is there anything he has gotten right?

Gil said...

It's interesting that, in these articles, the reporter always tries to anticipate any criticisms that might be directed at Obama and defuse them from the start.

How are they so good at guessing what criticism might be offered? They simply imagine what they'd allege in the article they'd write if the action was occurring under a Republican president.

cubanbob said...

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. Good for Obama for doing something right for a change. Attaboy Barry! Who knows with the right set of incentives maybe even he won't completely screw things up in the next three years.

zefal said...

If he were a Republican, it'd be the ny times doing the pumping. Instead we get a preemptive knock-down from them.

Surprised national park disservice wasn't there to cordoned off the Navy Seals from attacking.

Carl said...

the simultaneous attacks are bound to fuel accusations that the administration was eager for a showy victory.

Yeah, kind of like the smell of perfume in your hair and a used Trojan wrapper in your pocket will "fuel" some "accusations" from the wife. To which you'll also respond how dare you...!?

These media people are so crooked they have to screw their pants on every morning.

John Lynch said...

It's awful that the President is killing our enemies.

Terrible.

I don't care why he's doing it. Just keep doing it.

Clyde said...

Recently, I've been seeing news stories about how almost everything we were told about the Bin Laden raid was a lie (other than the Binnie being dead part).

Given the proven mendacity of this White House, can we believe ANYTHING they tell us about these supposed raids? Short answer, no. It's self-serving twaddle to distract the rubes, like the monthly jobs reports that are inevitably revised upward the following month. You'd get more truth from the Soviet-era Pravda than you do from today's MSM.

Carnifex said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CWJ said...

Jeez Carnifex!

Rusty said...

Navy seals don't like publicity.
I know a president who does though.

phx said...

It's Obama's fault.

Paco Wové said...

Following on what FullMoon said, it's interesting how Bush(II) & Obama have caused or materially assisted in the overthrow of two middle-eastern dictatorships, resulting in both countries becoming lawless hellholes (I suppose you could have considered them "lawfull hellholes" prior.) The Obama method at least has the advantage of being cheaper.

tim said...

So go in and get a Libyan Joe Smchoe, we can do. Go in and rescue Americans under attack. "We need permission. Can't do that."

I have chickens that have shit that is less disgusting that this guy in the white house.

tim maguire said...

While there certainly have been examples of military actions designed to distract from domestic issues (Bill Clinton, see above), this one doesn't seem showy enough. Besides, once you start thinking that way, there is always some domestic issue a president doesn't want you looking at. Especially this president.

AJ Lynch said...

Carnifex: on behalf of the commenters here and Meadhouse, I suggest you take the racist remarks elsewhere.

Hagar said...

I still want to know why it is OK for U.S. SWAT teams to travel around Libya arresting militants as long as it is not the "Benghazi" militants!

AJ Lynch said...

Hagar-I would also add I want to know what the president was doing on the night of 9/11/12.

Carnifex said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

Clean it up, Carnifex, or you'll be shirt listed.

Ann Althouse said...

De-autocorrected = shitlisted.

Hagar said...

Blacklisted would be a more ladylike term.

Hagar said...

"Shitlisted" is more like a Government term.

Phaedrus said...

Looks like the Somalia attack was unsuccessful. When will that be covered as much as the initial attack?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2013/1006/Failed-Navy-SEALs-raid-on-Somali-target-could-bolster-Al-Shabab-video