H/T Media Research Center
H/T Media Research Center
The U.S.-backed President and Prime Minister of Yemen, Abd-Rabbu Mansour and Khaled Balah, have offered their resignation from the country’s top positions, according to reports from the region.
Iran-backed Houthi Shiite militants have reportedly been holding Yemen’s president ‘captive’ at his presidential palace, in an action described by a Yemeni Colonel to the AP as a military coup. This is the “completion of a coup” and the president has “no control,” added Yemen’s Information Minister. U.S. officials have thus far refused to describe the developments as a “coup.”
This reportedly forced the U.S.-backed President to accede to the militant’s demands: that the Houthis are given prominent positions of power within the government, and that they will be allowed to maintain an active presence in the country’s capital city of Sanaa.
U.S. President Barack Obama has maintained that the United States’ partnership with the Yemeni government was a model for counterterrorism success. The President said in a September speech that the Yemen model for counterinsurgency would be utilized in fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq:
This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.
Below is an English-translated version of what is believed to be Yemen Prime Minister Balah’s resignation letter to President Hadi, posted on Facebook:
Obama justified his Libyan War to the American people by claiming that people of Benghazi were in danger from Gaddafi. After he succeeded in overthrowing Gaddafi, Benghazi reverted to its radical roots and became a city run by terrorist militias leading to the murder of four Americans.
And now a fifth American.
Every week, about a dozen Syrians arrive at Benghazi’s airport for what’s described as insurgent training. When they fly out, they’re carrying fake Libyan passports, according to three officials familiar with the comings and goings of foreigners at the airport.
The accounts of the officials, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the topic, are more evidence that this city in Libya has become a regional hub for Islamist extremists seeking to hone their combat skills.
It also raises questions about the role of Libya’s homegrown militia, Ansar al Shariah, in the global jihadi movement. Ansar al Shariah has its roots in the anti-Gadhafi uprising and it’s thought to have participated in the attack last year on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Any effort to train al Qaida-linked fighters here is unlikely to have gone forward without the backing of Ansar al Shariah, experts in the organization say.
Airport authorities can’t stop them because they themselves fear the repercussions of confronting militants. As one employee explained, pointing to an immigration official: “He is with Ansar al Shariah.”
Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan conceded in a recent interview with The Washington Post that government investigations have turned up Tunisians, Algerians, Sudanese and Nigerians undergoing training in Benghazi.
Clearly Obama’s plan to overthrow Gaddafi and replace him with the fun-loving LIFG and other Muslim Brotherhood militias with historical ties to Al Qaeda was a good decision that is working out really well.
On Monday, the State Department called on China to withdraw the rules it imposed when announcing its East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. “The fact that China’s announcement has caused confusion and increased the risk of accidents only further underscores the validity of concerns and the need for China to rescind the procedures,” said spokeswoman Jen Psaki at the department’s daily press briefing.
Psaki’s statement – a little too diplomatic given the circumstances – was a first step in undoing the harm the State Department caused on Friday when it advised U.S. carriers to comply with Beijing’s demands for its new zone.
Beijing established the air zone on November 23 without consulting other countries in the region, and it’s not hard to see why. First, China’s new ADIZ – air zones are known by these initials – includes the sovereign airspace of both Japan and South Korea. Worse, Beijing claims Japanese and South Korean territory under the zone as a part of the People’s Republic. The establishment of the zone, therefore, has been seen as an attempt to wrest sovereignty from both Tokyo and Seoul.
Second, Beijing requires aircraft to file flight plans before entering its zone and remain in touch with Chinese authorities while in the zone even if such aircraft do not intend to enter China’s sovereign airspace. Other countries, like the United States, do not have such expansive requirements for their ADIZs.
China’s new zone was, therefore, an unprecedented act, arrogant, belligerent, and dangerous. The U.S. and others, therefore, have ignored Beijing’s rules. On the Tuesday following the announcement of the zone, the Pentagon sent two B-52s, taking off from Guam, to fly through China’s zone without complying with its rules. Since then, the U.S. has been making daily transits through the zone, and Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese military craft have been also making frequent flights there.
The State Department, when it advised American carriers to respect the zone, stated that its position “does not indicate U.S. government acceptance of China’s requirements for operating in the newly declared ADIZ.” That sounds fine as a technical legal matter, but the Chinese have used the compliance of American carriers to bolster the legitimacy of its zone. “The submission of flight plans to the competent Chinese authorities by airlines of relevant countries including the US shows their constructive attitude and cooperative will in upholding aviation order and security in the airspace above the East China Sea together with China,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei on Monday. “We appreciate that.”
Trust the State Department to walk into a Chinese-made trap, undoing the good work of the Pentagon. If there has been any consistent American foreign policy over the course of more than two centuries, it has been the defense of freedom of navigation. Having American planes submit to China’s expansive rules undercuts that long-held – and essential – policy.
Tokyo has muscled Japanese carriers to not comply with China’s rules, and nothing has happened to their planes. Nonetheless, no one would think of endangering American civilian craft by forcing them not to honor China’s rules. What the State Department should have done, therefore, is to advise carriers to avoid the zone altogether – or even ordered them to do so.
Staying out of China’s ADIZ is the safe thing to do. For more than a decade, China’s air force has been engaged in dangerous flying, getting too close to planes of other countries. There was the Hainan incident in 2001, when a reckless Chinese pilot clipped the wing of an unarmed Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane, sending China’s jet into the water and forcing the American plane to make a landing. And despite the uproar then, the situation has not improved. Vice President Biden, during a visit to Beijing in 2011, showed Chinese leaders photographs of their aircraft coming within 10 feet of American planes in international airspace.
The State Department’s tepid language is not only insufficient but also counterproductive. The Chinese in recent years have not been responding to our friendly gestures. They see them as signs of weakness and try to press their advantage. Bad things happen when your adversary does not respect you.
China’s new ADIZ, now contested airspace, is no place for American carriers. North Asia is getting dangerous. There are historic animosities going back centuries, countries are rapidly building up their militaries, political leaders emotionally want to fight, and military officers have not been tempered by the horror of combat.
On Friday, the Chinese Ministry of Defense said it scrambled jets in response to American and Japanese aircraft transiting China’s ADIZ. Planes of competing nations are now maneuvering in the same airspace at the same time, and the Chinese are seeking to create a confrontation. The last thing the State Department should have done is encourage American carriers to enter such contested airspace.
Obama is determined, come hell or high water, that Iran get a nuclear arsenal. This has been a core goal of the Democrat party for decades.
Excerpted from The Jerusalem Post: US President Barack Obama said Thursday that no matter how powerful the American military, a strike against nuclear facilities in Iran could lead the Islamic Republic to “pursue even more vigorously nuclear weapons in the future.”
“No matter how good our military is, military options are always messy,” Obama said. “Any armed conflict has cost to it.”
At a press conference in the West Wing of the White House, Obama, speaking primarily about changes to his signature health care law, said he hoped Congress would hold off on new sanctions against Iran as negotiations proceeded in Geneva – “if, in fact, we’re serious about trying to resolve this diplomatically.” Keep reading
…H/T The Right Scoop
Here is my take, Obama was rude, condescending, looked petty, and rude with his consistent interruptions. Romney looked, and certainly acted far more presidential than Obama did. The best line Obama had, apparently was attacking Romney, and playing that tired class warfare card. To me, it is simple, Romney won, on both style and substance. The president glared at Romney, trying his angry face out I suppose. The most troubling aspect of the night was how brazenly Obama lied, flat out lied about Romney, it is truly pathetic, but this is the state of your modern Democratic Party. Others, of course weighed in, and here is a round up of what others are saying…….
Nice Deb, has a great round up herself, and a video of Krauthammer calling the debate decisively for Romney
The Lonely Conservative agrees with me that Obama got a whoopin she also saw the anger in Obama
I think Mitt Romney won tonight’s foreign policy debate. President Obama looked peeved and angry when he wasn’t laughing. He interrupted Romney numerous times. Romney seemed calm, cool and unflappable. He certainly didn’t come off as some sort of warmonger the Democrats want you to believe he is.
I was tweeting during the entire debate. You can read the tweets here, at least for a while. I also did a few posts on Sulia.
Romney has momentum at this point, and I doubt tonight’s debate did anything to change that. I don’t care what theWashington Post says about Obama putting Romney on his heels. All anyone had to do was look at the split screen to see who was on his heels. It certainly wasn’t Romney, if it was he might have been the one doing all of the interrupting.
Weasel Zippers has a great line from Romney that made my ears perk up. Dennis Prager also mentioned this on his show today, although, I am not sure how many Americans will get the context
If those threatened riots happen, maybe we should blame Ohio, which Ace says is a state that Team Obama is fretting over
[E]ven if Obama loses Ohio, his campaign sees another pathway to the presidency by nailing New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.
The first rule of Losing Ohio Club is you don’t talk about Losing Ohio Club.
By the way, it will be very hard for Obama to win three of those states (NH, IA, and CO). Colorado, especially, leans to Romney now.
The others are tossups… for now.
Why would Obama be talking about alternate routes to victory not including Ohio?
Obviously, I think, they don’t think Ohio is safe. And to talk about losing it… I think they think they’re behind.
And then there is North Carolina, which Team Obama might have given up on already
No debate coverage would be complete without checking in with The Other McCain who sums up how we all feel
Thank God, tonight’s debate is the last of this presidential campaign. Republicans endured 20 debates during the primary campaign, and we’re ready to stop debating and start
stabbing out Chris Matthews’ eyeballs with sharp sticksvoting.
Any way you slice it, Team Obama is deeply worried, and it is showing. Donald Douglas makes an important point about that here
That’s why Mitt Romney killed this debate. He’s optimistic and looking toward the future. He affirms America’s greatness, with no apologies. He’s hopeful and not stuck on bemoaning the “policies that got us into to this mess in the first place,” like a bleedin’ crybaby, unable to lead. Romney’s championing the policies that will get us out of it. The election can’t come to soon. The American people are going to send O on a long golfing retirement.
I have made the point in the past that Conservatives are far more optimistic than Liberals. And it shows on Obama’s face and rings out in his rhetoric, oh, yes, it shows in polls too and face it, when Obama loses Rob Schneider….. And Obama makes gaffes about bayonets… You see Mr. President, there these soldiers called Marines, and they use these things called bayonets
Last night Barack Obama mocked the use of horses and bayonets in the military.
TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night’s debate.
According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program … because “the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations.”
We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. — a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets — who tells us he believes Obama’s comment was “ignorant … because our soldiers still use bayonets.”
He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time — he should get educated on it.”
Halfway through last night’s debate I thought to myself, “I’m missing Monday Night Football for this?“
The reason that I dropped off the Herman Cain bandwagon was simple. He had no grip on foreign policy, and that is a deal killer for me. Of course Cain would have been better than the pathetic Obama record on foreign policy H/T American Power
Chris sums up last night’s debate pretty well.
I know I’m gonna take some heat, but good God man, what was Ron Paul thinking?
The Taliban only wants to fight us “over there?” Well sure dude, if you don’t count those 4 hijacked airplanes and two demolished buildings. Other than that there’s, oh I don’t know, only a coupla dozen Islamic nutjobs who’ve brought jihad to within pissing distance of my front porch. That’s “over there,” if you’re Ron Paul.
To the sane though, it’s out there, which is where he belongs. Compared to Ron Paul even Jon Huntsman looks credible.
SPOT ON!! Paul has let his idealism override his common sense. He sounds like a typical liberal when he talks foreign policy.
When Newt came out for Amnesty Mitt didn’t say “boo.” Jump on Rick Perry, Mitt did, for the same stance, but Newtie gets a pass?
I caught this too, maybe Mitt has some personal issue with Perry, or, maybe it is all strategy, who knows
I actually thought that Perry had the best response to the illegal alien issue. Secure the border, then decide who stays and who goes. An unsecure border is an incentive, and it sends the wrong message.
I agree, securing the border FIRST is the only way to even start. Nothing matters as long as the border is unsecure.
This last part, I also agree with. Chris advises Bachmann, Santorum, and that the MSNBS fave, Huntsman would pull out. Frankly, I would, sadly, add Cain to that list as well. He has NOTHING in the area of foreign policy, foreign policy is kind of a big deal for presidents.
Also, with those four out, we can avoid splitting all those Conservative votes. Those votes being split will help Romney get nominated. Sorry, but it is time for some of these Conservatives to admit that, for the good of the party…………..
LIVE STREAMING FOR THIS EVENT HAS ENDED.
Senator Marco Rubio Delivers A Major Foreign Policy Speech At The Jesse Helms Center In Wingate, North Carolina – 09/13/11
Marco’s Constituent Mailbox: Jobs And The Economy – 09/09/11
Visit Senator Rubio’s YouTube Channel At http://www.youtube.com/user/SenatorMarcoRubio
Then Check Out His Official Website At http://rubio.senate.gov
Stacy McCain weighs in on Obama, and his Libya strategizing.
What slapped me upside the head in Obama’s press conference yesterday was his insistence that an “international consensus” justified the attacks on Libya, and that multilateralism was a “core principle” of his foreign policy. Nothing could be more harmful, more calculated to infringe U.S. sovereignty. This undermines the proper goal of foreign policy, namely the pursuit of our national interest.
If hostile foreign powers know that the U.S. cannot go to war without an “international consensus,” then they will seek to influence or intimidate potential allies. By denying America a “consensus,” they will thereby render the U.S. military impotent, so that our interests overseas (whatever those interests may be) are at the mercy of any aggressor.
The best way to defeat a hostile coalition, as Winston Churchill pointed out in The World Crisis, is to attack its weakest member. And this is exactly how America’s enemies operate when seeking to deprive us of the “international consensus” that liberals insist is necessary for the United States to take military action
Absolutely correct! The complete lack of leadership here is stunning. And when the American president lacks resolve, and a backbone, that makes America, as a whole, look weak. That is the very worst thing we can look to the “rest of the world”. Not to mention that it seems that Obama, the “Constitutional Scholar”, has ignored Congress in this in favor of the U.N. As I have said before, I am not sure what Constitution Obama has studied, but it clearly is not ours!