Just Kabuki Theater?

Everyone seems a little perplexed by the actions of lil Kim-un.  What is he doing?  Why?   Some think it's just an exercise of his new power and show of force to the Nork population and his generals as to who's boss.  Maybe.  Here's NBC News:

Korea-watchers expect there would be a declaration of a victory unrecognized anywhere else in the world, dancing in the streets, and then quiet until the drama repeats itself at some point in the near future. "We've been there, done that," Straub said of a possible missile launch. "Unless they lobbed these things onto Japan, there's not going to be some huge sanctions from it."

OK, sure.  We have indeed 'been there, done that'.  But why does it seem all these networks continually erase one of the most important events in the history of the regime, an event that not only relates to the Norks themselves but to the current Syrian civil war (which they are also pretty much ignoring)?

Well, maybe it's because the event solidified George W. Bushitler's "Axis of Evil" speech while at the same time putting the MSM in a box as to how to report on something Israel did without criticizing Obama's lead-from-behind Syrian policy and reporting on the North Koreans...

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today. The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.

In other words, even if they never launch a missile they have already shown themselves to be a huge proliferation threat.

In Obama's visionary unicorn world free of nukes such things are a problem. Towards that end, US officials are now backing down on rhetoric and military exercises while simultaneously saying that the Norks will not be allowed to become a nuclear state (even though they already are--presumably they mean a nuclear weapons state). Since we've tried every kind of talk and ceremony to stop these clowns, from Clinton through Bush to Obama--to no end, how do they propose to stop them now short of an attack?

Maybe Cheney was Right

..about Patrick Leahy...

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week. Revised bill highlights Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

To refresh the memories of those who've forgotten, this is the Cheney reference.

Now, shouldn't this have been the lead story on every network today?  In previous days?  Especially in light of the past outrage from folks like Leahy about the Bush abuses of the Patriot Act?   Yet finding it on CNN required a search; checking NBC, CBS, and ABC as of this post, and using the search "Patrick Leahy emails", here's what came up:

ABC-- Danica Patrick is getting a divorce.
NBC-- Danica Patrick is getting a divorce.
CBS-- John Yoo torture emails remain missing.

But never fear! Before the story could get any legs on the major American news outlets CNET was already reporting that Leahy is standing down on the bill.  So it's almost like it never really happened.

If Bush was Warned...

...so was Obama:

Concerned about the reaction to an anti-Muslim film that was gaining attention online, the U.S. intelligence community sent a cable to the embassy in Cairo, Egypt, warning of the concern, a U.S. official told CNN. The intelligence cable was sent 48 hours before the protests in Cairo and in Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. official said. The cable did not warn of any specific threat, the official said

Is this 20/20 hindsight?  Mostly.  Just as it was with Bush.  Similar to the Bush reaction, Jay Carney explained there was no 'actionable' intelligence provided, ie, they weren't told that radicals mobbing over an incendiary movie might get out of control, even if the mob included the brother of Ayman Zawahiri.  Even the attack on the Libyan consulate was out of the blue. 

Oddly, on the very same day of the attack--Tuesday 9/11--the NY Times published a hit piece on Bush suggesting that the Presidential Daily Brief (the same one Obama makes only half the time) of August 6, 2001 was enough warning for the Bush folks to have possibly prevented 9/11.  No full alert and such.  Ironically it was the NY Times who published the picture of Bill Ayers stomping on a flag on the actual 9/11. He said he didn't do enough, too.  

But OK, we have this vague warning despite the CIA initially saying there was no warning.  Were our embassies on full alert on the anniversary of the attack and after the warning?  We already know the answer as we await the Times expose explaining how it's totally different this time.

Meanwhile--perhaps the bigger story was the administration strongly pressuring You Tube owner Google to review the hoaky Islam film's presence on their site as per terms of use, ie, you might want to get rid of it, thanks.  Wow, such dictatorial strong-arming during the Bush administration usually got someone a Pulitzer!  To their credit Google said no, it stays, then restricted the video in Libya and Egypt and expressed condolences.  But the White House got what they wanted in keeping the story about the film and not AQ flags flying over our embassies or people yelling about 1 billion bin Ladens.

MORE  9/15/12 

The administration and their Chihuahuas in the media can continue to focus on Romney or some silly movie trailer on the web, but the genesis of the Cairo riots--on September 11--can more likely be found in stories like this issued on September 10 (via Jihad Watch):

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: "The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the "Blind Sheikh"], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released."

And if that was released publicly imagine what they had privately.  But hey, look over there--it's Princess Kate topless! And Romney wants to kill sick children. 

Nobody should be fooled.  Obama knows exactly what's going on here. He's hoping things calm down because continued disruption puts a kink in his foreign policy chops, which almost entirely center around his successful drone assassination program against al Qaeda and the removal of Gaddafi.  What else has he accomplished?   He knows this event threatens both, and he can't be weak on both foreign policy and the economy and still hope to win.

Then again he probably knows that few in the lapdog media will want to do any in-depth investigations about this warning and the so-called Blind Sheikh it mentions because they know any such thing would invariably entail the mention of convention savior Bill Clinton and his track record on terrorism.  Notice the Egyptian jihadies demanded ALL Muslim prisoners in America be released, including the likes of Ramzi Yousef, the first bomber of the WTC, and his uncle KSM, who planned jihad on 11 airplanes in the 90s before he planned 9/11 (oops, did it again).  Having their little flag burning party on 9/11 was not about a present-day movie, it was about the past. 

Outrage Times Two

If all the dots mentioned in this story can be connected then we're seeing the equivalence of the new brown shirts of America:

After the story about the puppy sale ran in the newspapers and on TV newscasts, three dog wardens from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture showed up on Brown's doorstep for a kennel inspection.

And they showed up again and again for four visits over four months.

She said she has also received death threats from animal activists against her and Biden, which were reported to the Secret Service and the FBI.

All for publicly selling a German Shepherd puppy to Vice President Joe Biden, who gave it to his granddaughters for Christmas. Their outrage has nothing to do with this, it's most likely an offshoot of this:

But, by changing its name, the band could raise awareness at every tour stop of the "cramped, filthy conditions" that breeders keep animals in before selling them to pet stores, PETA said in its letter

The CNN story reminds of a former PETA campaign to rename fish to 'sea kittens' so people wouldn't want to eat them anymore. Yes, most of them are in need of shrinks but the problem is they're becoming large enough from donations to evidently ruin people with whom they disagree instead of just disagreeing, a sort of vigilantism not even espoused by noted nutballs like Glenn Beck.

Maybe for the guys it's the nudity, which is compelling (most guys would never become liberals if it weren't for the chicks) but they're nothing but modern day sirens.

Isn't it time for 'Don't mess with Joe' to get down and funky and show some support for this poor breeder?

Bush heckler

Same ole same old, except the protesters appear clueless that they disrupted a swearing-in ceremony, not a Bush event. According to the LA Times report Bush responded to the crowd by saying, "we believe in free speech in the United States of America."

The Times then felt compelled to explain more about one of the protesters:

"one of the protesters, David Swanson, has gone online to explain his behavior, saying"

And of course, they felt compelled to hyperlink his URL, to which I felt compelled to click.

Shockingly, David Swansen is a Democrat activist, affiliated with sites like AfterDowningStreet, impeachCheney, MeetwithCindy, etc. The Times description makes it sound rather innocuous, like perhaps the protester popped up a Blogspot site to explain his antics while in reality they knew he was the purveyor of those sites and the Washington director of Democrats.com. They knew because they linked the site.

Can we imagine the Times quietly linking to any similar right wing site without prior warning to the reader? No we can't!

Brave souls venturing deeper into his array of sites will come across his personal blog, whereupon he triumphantly explains his heroic stunt and promises video, etc. But for those wanting to exercise their own free speech rights and heckle Mr. Swansen online for his boorish behavior they must first register. Yeah, freedom baby.