C-SPAN “In-Depth”/Sunday open thread
Be sure to join me on C-SPAN2′s BookTV program, “In Depth” today at 12noon-3pm Eastern. You can watch on TV or live online here. Have questions for me about any of my books? E-mail questions to booktv@c-span.org.
Related fun fact from the NYTimes’ “Inside the List” column today:
The hardcover nonfiction list was dominated by sports, celebrities, conservatives and Malcolm Gladwell, who scored with “Outliers” (a holdover from 2008) and “What the Dog Saw.” Mark R. Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny,” an anti-Obama cri de coeur, held on longest at No. 1 (11 weeks), with ideological backup from Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption” (six weeks in the top spot); Dick Morris’s “Catastrophe” (two weeks); Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” (one week); and Palin’s “Going Rogue” (six weeks and counting). Elizabeth Edwards (“Resilience”) and Edward M. Kennedy (“True Compass”) led the countercharge, each lasting just one week at No. 1. Final roll call: conservatives, 26; liberals, 2; Malcolm Gladwell, 9.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Cincinnati-Area School Pays Kids to… Show Up to School
February 13, 2012 09:43 PM by Doug Powers
10 CommentsWill Jack Lew please report to the Obama “Truth Team” desk now?; Update: Obama Budget Fail
February 13, 2012 10:57 AM by Michelle Malkin
149 CommentsVideo: Mr. America
February 13, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsNon-shocker of the morning: Soros monkeys coordinate with Democrats
February 13, 2012 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
88 CommentsGreece Erupts After Vote for Austerity Measures to Secure Another Bailout
February 12, 2012 10:19 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
43 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 Comments
Categories: Politics
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Did he?
I think initial statements may have been made by Janet that were wrong. But as more information comes in, the Administration is being very forthcoming about the terrorist and his ties. Did you watch MM on C-Span today? She went on in some length about how she may initially say something that turns out to be wrong. She makes an effort to go back and provide the correct information. Isn’t that what Obama is doing now?
out country. What in the world is “out country”.
OUR country.
Again my bad. Man, I’m on a roll….
“Did he?”
Yes he did. Until it became clear Obama was WAY off and he was looking ever more the fool.
The initial and original “line” was lone wolf, etc.
Obama’s last two weeks in terms of handling national security, the intellegence agencies, etc., have been horrendously bad. Dangerously and recklessly BAD.
At best its been the three stooges. At worse its been intentional. Take you pick.
London’s point of view. But I’m sure Rush Limbaugh has influenced even the UK’s news outlets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6924404/Barack-Obama-is-vulnerable-on-terror—and-he-knows-it.html
It’s obvious that on-the-job training for Obama hasn’t worked out. This is what you get for voting a neophyte with NO executive experience whatsoever into office only because he was “cool”.
Thank you stupid sheeple voters.
I would love to see C-SPAN speak to the issue of how Obama promised, on multiple occasions, to hold all discussion of the health care on C-SPAN.
I don’t think anyone from C-SPAN will call his bluff,
but I would love to see them do so!
FIFY, Red Pill
Best regards,
Joe Wilson
It is a question of comparative rank and power-not one that is an absolute comparison, Chap. MM is not the US President replete with that office’s power. He is supposed to be competent in this area, AKA national leadership. This is not MM’s known Forte nor mine, the last time I checked.
The frank fact is, Chap, is that Obama- sat or surfed on his ass for days while this issue was brewing, and acted like it was no big deal while the Secreatry of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano made an ass out of herself with her claim that “everything worked as it it was supposed to”…imagine the reaction by the Left if Bush and his Administration had done this..oh that’s right…we already know the answer to that one, now don’t we?
Would you mind telling me, Chap, what Obama is going to do to at least inconvenience the terrorists?..he sure as heck seems hell-bent on inconveniencing US passnegers with loss of privacy (that would not have even stopped the Knickerbomber)
…and while I write this, Obama-unless he changes his gifted mind once more- intends to pull the US Emabassy out of Yemen, merely because Al Qaida threatens it….
Isn’t that just superb leadership? I’m just so feaking impressed, aren’t you?
It suggests that we might be about to take broad military action against Yemen rather than narrow covert strikes. It puts that government on alert that they risk being declared a terrorist sponsoring state. Whether that happens, this is a step in the right direction. We should do the same in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Two other failed states.
LOL
In the spirit of your comment, have I got that much space in your head that you imagine me calling calling C-SPAN to speak with MM?
I’ve got space in War Eagle’s head and I am not even paying rent for it.
LOL
Perhaps…but based on what I’ve seen so far this past year, I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t think for a moment Obama is planning a broad military action against Yemen.
I don’t think Obama has it in him to initiate a decisive military action against anyone but the TEA Party movement in America!
The withdrawal of the ambassador is almost certainly the first step to minimal “sanctions” that Obama may implement such as limiting the export of Yemeni sand to America.
Obama, the clown, isn’t going to decisively combat terrorism anywhere. He doesn’t want to “act stupidly” like the Cambridge PD after all…
I disagree. Obama’s credibility on national defense is so low that he must do something soon. Firing our Secretary of Homeland Euphemisms is not going to be enough. Republicans used to say the same thing about Bill Clinton and yet he wanted to take out Saddam in 1998 when he was still using WMDs only to be denied by a Republican Congress that would rather pursue impeachment. He only got 3 days of bombing Baghdad and a change of foreign policy towards Iraq from containment to regime change.
Obama’s actions, if your point is true, will only increase the determinedness and ferocity of such (a) future attack by Al Qaida and their sympathizers…as in encouraging them to attack us on the US proper big-time (and with a possibly bigger attack(s) than the 9/11 attacks were)to be responded by the US with an all-out respons to quash them(?). That would require either a nuclear strike by the US or a resumption of the draft to pull that off-I just can’t see Obama being willing to do that.
We also lose a portal to getting our own intelligence (via the US Emabssy) of such terrorist activities, if we close it down…
Again, maybe you’re right Pasadena Phil, I’m just still skeptical.
I know this is OT, but have you guys seen the latest video by PitchforkPatriot. Very well done and a keeper. And it must be effective because youtube has the counter stopped at 331 for several days. Give it a look see when you have 10 minutes.
Regardless, his “motivation” seems to have noting to do with crushing an enemy that is hell bent on killing the citizens and destroying he is suppose to protect.
If we are only going to fight our enemies when it makes them happy, we can’t win. They don’t have the capability to attack us they way you suggest or they would have done it already. They were weak when this started and are only growing weaker. We have been obliterating their leadership while isolating states and entities who have been sending them money, providing them with armaments and supplies, and allowing them to run training camps under their protection. We will systematically destroy them over time.
The real challenge will be to not forget who we are in the process by becoming a mirror image of them. We have enough problems at home fighting a corrupt government determined to reduce America from being a sovereign nation to being just a market in a new global world run by a corporate fascist global government. We can and will win against both. That is unless we decide to fight 12th century Muslims by reverting to being 12th century Christians. We must not go back to the Dark Ages even for a minute.
sorry, hint sent too quick
destroying = destroying the country
Pasadena Phil,
I think you are wrong to conclude that Clinton ever intended to take decisive action against Iraq. Clinton only took military action for short-term domestic political gain. Look at all his military actions over 8 years. None were significant, large-scale military actions. And he failed to act in several places where he might have been able to force a GOP-led Congress to support him like Rwanda…
No, I don’t think you are correct in predicting Obama will undertake broad military actions in Yemen. Nor do I suspect any limited military actions he might take there will be helpful as he will certainly only be looking for a short-term, domestic boost in his ratings. In fact, anything Obama might do in Yemen will probably make things worse in the longer term. His actions are likely to incite more Jihadists and destablize Yemen even more…
That was the argument in 1998 during the “wag the dog” episode. I look back at that and find that it was the Republicans who were risking national security by denying the president permission to destroy a tyrant when we could. All over a BJ. ALL politicians play politics and over the years, I don’t hold the Republicans in much higher regard.
As for destabilizing Yemen, they are already a failed state. There is no stability in the Middle East. We are dealing with tribes, not nations. The boundaries and international constructs are artificial.
You vastly underestimate human nature. It destroys the soul to watch your leaders getting slaughtered day after day after day. Animals are usually at their most ferocious during their death throes. But they die anyway.
BTW, every time these terrorists rise up to launch attacks, they reveal where they are and we find them. Then we kill lots of them, particularly their leaders.
They are incapable of escalating their war to the level that would bring down the modern world. They simply cannot execute a broad and sustained attack. The world is not a castle to be weakened by a prolonged siege before being brought down by a massive assault by waves of sword-wielding Muslims. They may be in a state of perpetual outrage but that is a big reason why they can’t win.
Chap is on record: Michelle Malkin would make just as fine a Commander in Chief as Obama!
In what way the Clinton denied?
Bombing from 15,000 feet or having a political NATO commander whose war plan thoroughly sucked? Please explain how you think the Republicans, who I have little respect for also, contributed?
SPOT ON!
cri de coeur? anti-Obama? Did these people ever read Levin’s book?
Basically the same stuff Obama wrote in the Hyde Park paper on Sep 18, 2001 and the introduction to ‘Dreams of My Father.’
Pasadena Phil,
The fact that Yemen is a failed state does not mean Obama can’t make things worse.
The fact that Yemen is a failed state means that “decisive military action” would be hard to define. Think Somalia in the late 80s. How in the world might we have made a decisive change in Somalia? Granted Yemen is smaller and less populous than Somalia but that doesn’t mean there is a simple military solution to the many problems Yemen presents.
Do you really think Obama will initiate actions in Yemen of similar scope and nature to that taken in Iraq under Bush?
Do you really think he would do so without international consent? Do you think he could get international consent to invade Yemen with 50,000 to 100,000 troops and occupy it for several years enduring the kind of guerilla war we faced in Iraq? We don’t have that many troops to spare! It would make combat deployments to Afghanistan far longer than the current deployments and put a real strain on our Armed Forces.
We might go in and kill a lot of people and blow up a lot of things but that doesn’t necessarily solve the Yemen problem. In fact it might make our global security situation less secure.
How else might Obama do engage in “broad” military action against Yemen short of invading and occupying the hell-hole?
I am not sure what “crushing poverty” in Yemen has to do with wealthy Nigerians or Saudis detroying aircraft and buildings in America but I am sure Obama will explain it to us.
Sure, there are a lot of poor people crossing from tribal areas of Pakistan into Afghanistan to fight us but they aren’t jumping on commercial aircraft on one-way tickets to kill us…
In Obama’s world, “poverty” is the cause of every imagined problem even when it is the wealthiest people in these nations engaging in terrorism. Obama is simply out of his element and repeating old leftist mantras. And he is going to get a lot of people killed by doing so.
Let me turn that right back at you. How does Yemen being a failed state work in favor of the terrorists? It doesn’t change the reality that the end of “war” will never be marked by a distinct event like a surrender or the outright defeat of a country. It will eventually be depleted of men and resources. By being a failed country, we can now do pretty much what we please in Yemen without clearing it with the worse than useless government nor worry about niceties like collateral casualties. If these people aren’t already willing to fight for their freedom, they will inevitably be road kill to somebody. Sad but it is their choice. Freedom isn’t handed it out. It is earned.
Pasadena Phil,
The US can go in to Yemen and kill a lot of bad guys (and other people). And the moment we leave the vacuum returns and the cycle repeats.
Like I said, do you want a repeat of Somalia again? Or do you want to invade Yemen and withdraw every six to 12 months for the next 3 years? Do you think Obama has the backbone to do that? Do you think he has the backbone to invade and occupy Yemen for 3 years? Do you think he would do so without UN support? Do you think he could get it?
More likely, the bad guys will flee like cockroaches to other remote places and start operations there since they would have a pretty good idea of what was going on at the UN. Sudan, Somalia, Iran, etc. come to mind. Do you want to chase them around with 50,000 troops for the next 3 years? Is that the most effective use of military power?
There are things that could be done in Yemen and other places to minimize the terrorist threat but Obama doesn’t have the backbone to do any of them. None of the leftists have that kind of resolve when it comes to national security.
It’s not about invading and occupying anyone. It’s about keeping their leaders afraid and on the move while punishing any state that helps them. What you say about killing “a lot of bad guys (and other people). And the moment we leave the vacuum returns and the cycle repeats.” is basically true but so what? “The process” results in many of their leaders dying while keeping them preoccupied with running for their lives which keeps them disorganized. It also makes them easier to find and kill. No one can keep replenishing its ranks when the expected lifespan of leaders is counted in months. It’s never ending hell as the ever less charismatic new leadership finds it harder and harder to find reliable recruits.
Muslims are people too. They aren’t super beings. They are weak and getting weaker.
And I don’t care about what the leftists are inclined to do. Obama is already feeling it from his own party about how the perception of being asleep at the wheel on national security will doom the party for a generation as sure as Carter’s weakness did a generation before. Party matters much less than you think. It’s okay to talk rhetorically but don’t think that way.
“Isn’t that what Obama is doing now?”
You do know that Michelle is a journalist/writer and Obama is the President right Chap?
As the leader of the free world I expect Obama to get it right especially when we’re talking about terrorism. The impact of Obama getting it wrong and Michelle getting it wrong one would hope you aren’t trying to make those two “errors” equivalent.
If so and that’s the best you got, that isn’t much of an argument.
Do we want Obama to correct course when he’s wrong? Well of course. At the same time I expect him to have a sense of context, who he is, the impact of what he says and does, the issue at hand, and when it is a critically important issue to get it right BEFORE he sets everyone including our enemy off.
In other words I expect a certain level of maturity and leadership. However we do know already that neither is present in his administration.
Rookies and self serving junior highers.
His rush to blame the CIA as evidence of his mindset and his administration’s mindset.
The video of Michelle’s appearance on BookTV is here.
Heh. Just caught the beginning of the show. The back cover thing is funny and cute, MM.