Breitbart does it again...

[RkFast]

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/

[Buftex]

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/

 

 

Wow..Dylan Ratigan? They got him? Who is he again? Matt Taibbi? Isn't that the guy who writes for the underground rag, "Rolling Stone"? I think it is, I just read an article in the latest issue, where he lays out what the demands the "occupy Wall Street" movement should be making...that sneaky bastard!!! Next thing you know, they will dig up evidence that Sean Hannity has a conservative slant to his coverage of the news...damn that Breitbart!!!!

 

I wonder if Dana Loesch has someone crafting her messages for her...cuz when you hear her speak, she sounds like a complete moron...

Edited October 17, 2011 by Buftex

[IDBillzFan]

I love one of the comments in response to the suggestions Ratigan and Taibbi were making: "Notice how not one of them suggested soap?"

 

The only people missing from this embarrassment is Bishop Hedd and Paul Krugman.

[3rdnlng]

I love one of the comments in response to the suggestions Ratigan and Taibbi were making: "Notice how not one of them suggested soap?"

 

The only people missing from this embarrassment is Bishop Hedd and Paul Krugman.

 

 

Are you sure? See comment just prior to your post.

[Rob's House]

Wow..Dylan Ratigan? They got him? Who is he again? Matt Taibbi? Isn't that the guy who writes for the underground rag, "Rolling Stone"? I think it is, I just read an article in the latest issue, where he lays out what the demands the "occupy Wall Street" movement should be making...that sneaky bastard!!! Next thing you know, they will dig up evidence that Sean Hannity has a conservative slant to his coverage of the news...damn that Breitbart!!!!

 

I wonder if Dana Loesch has someone crafting her messages for her...cuz when you hear her speak, she sounds like a complete moron...

Come on man. Carry the reason you display in other forums to your politics. You can't really pretend that a reporter pretending to objectively report on a story, who himself is an activist heavily supporting one side, is somehow analogous to Sean Hannity, who might as well have an elephant tattooed on his forehead, openly arguing the conservative position.

[Buftex]

Come on man. Carry the reason you display in other forums to your politics. You can't really pretend that a reporter pretending to objectively report on a story, who himself is an activist heavily supporting one side, is somehow analogous to Sean Hannity, who might as well have an elephant tattooed on his forehead, openly arguing the conservative position.

 

 

No, you are right...I just think it is hardly a story...Matt Taibbi has been "exposed" by Breitbart? Just read Rolling Stone, he has not been trying to be covert at all...he fully backs the "occupy" movement...media types have been activists forever... I don't see how anyone with a brain in their head could cover these things, and not have an opinion, or point of view. Breitbart is so full of himself, I just kind of find him repulsive. Kind of the way some of you feel about Michael Moore, I am sure. I understand that he has taken it upon himself to be a conservative activist, if you will... but he is as disingenuous as the people he tries to expose, IMO. Whenever he tries to explain his position, he sounds like some kid who wanted to be popular, but wasn't, so he is turning on everyone he was trying to impress.

 

I am not real familiar with Dylan Ratigan, but, if I am not mistaken, he has a few books out about "taking on corporate America", so thinking he has been exposed as something other than what he presents himself as, is kind of silly... at this point, anybody who watches CNN, FOX or MSNBC and thinks they are getting objective news coverage deserves what they get.

 

btw- kind of unrelated, but I can't think of anywhere else to tell this anecdote...I was in NYC over the weekend, for the Bills game, among other things. I was taking a cab, we were driving down Park Ave...the driver, Indian I believe, points to some nice condos and says, in a thick Apoo accent, "lock your doors, this neighborhood is full of criminals"...I thought it was pretty funny...the person I was in the cab with had no idea what he was talking about...

Edited October 18, 2011 by Buftex

[RkFast]

I acutally like Taibbi very much. But the issue I have, like with most things, is the hypocrisy. These clowns will sneer at Fox News as biased. Call the Tea Party dumb rubes and misguided and every name in the book and worse, not for their ideals, which I dont blame left-wingers for hating, but for their acutal practice of making some political noise. People like Ratigan and Taibbi, Matthews and Sarandon and Penn honestly beleive that they "own" the right to make political noise. To say whatever they want to whomever they want. But someone else pipes up with their opinion and they are to be outcast, shut down and marginalized as racists and terrorists.

 

I had a talk with my lib friend one day about Fox, how biased and evil they are and when I said that I actually yagree that they tilt right...just like MSNBC tilts left, he said with a straight face "No they dont....MSNBC is honest and objective!!!!"

 

So thats what Breitbart exposed again....that these people, these champions of "free and open ideas" and "honest journalism" are just as bad as what they claim to despise.

Edited October 18, 2011 by RkFast

[Buftex]

I acutally like Taibbi very much. But the issue I have, like with most things, is the hypocrisy. These clowns will sneer at Fox News as biased. Call the Tea Party dumb rubes and misguided and every name in the book and worse, not for their ideals, which I dont blame left-wingers for hating, but for their acutal practice of making some political noise. People like Ratigan and Taibbi, Matthews and Sarandon and Penn honestly beleive that they "own" the right to make political noise. To say whatever they want to whomever they want. But someone else pipes up with their opinion and they are to be outcast, shut down and marginalized as racists and terrorists.

 

I had a talk with my lib friend one day about Fox, how biased and evil they are and when I said that I actually yagree that they tilt right...just like MSNBC tilts left, he said with a straight face "No they dont....MSNBC is honest and objective!!!!"

 

So thats what Breitbart exposed again....that these people, these champions of "free and open ideas" and "honest journalism" are just as bad as what they claim to despise.

 

 

The "news" networks are essentially video op-ed channels... I might make the argument that CNN is much more in the center than the others, but I know most would object. MSNBC and FOX are the extremes. You watch these two channels with any regularity (and I do, I admit) you would think we live in two very different countries.

 

But, as to your point about Sarandan, Penn, etc...I don't know that they have as much clout as you are giving them. I admire Sean Penn for the fact that he seems sincere in wanting to affect positive change for his causes, but I also realize, he is no expert in politics. I don't hold a grudge against him for using whatever power his name brings him, to shine light on causes that are important to him. There are plenty of conservative leaning entertainers who could do the same, should they choose. If they think "coming out" as conservatives will hurt their show business careers, those are the breaks...but there is always strength in numbers.

 

But, be honest, this doesn't go on with both sides? Herman Cain is running around saying that liberals have the goal of "ruining the American economy" isn't a little over the top? Hannity, and his ilk, constantly saying that Obama is a socialist, to play into the fears of the ignorant, isn't a little disingenuous?

 

From my view, Breitbart is running around like he is some sort of champion of the Tea Party movement, like he wants to make sure it gets fair representation in the media...which is fine. I applaud that effort. I really wish that movement had a rational, coherent spokesperson. Breitbart isn't it, though. I get the feeling he is into this for very personal reasons...whenever I see him interviewed it is "me, me, me...I, I, I...". I just don't think he adds anything, but slime, to the cause. And isn't there enough of that, everywhere? People like Dana Loesch are like the Tea Party equivalent of the mindless protesters at the Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations. They are all talking points, and no substance.

[IDBillzFan]

From my view, Breitbart is running around like he is some sort of champion of the Tea Party movement, like he wants to make sure it gets fair representation in the media...which is fine. I applaud that effort. I really wish that movement had a rational, coherent spokesperson. Breitbart isn't it, though. I get the feeling he is into this for very personal reasons...whenever I see him interviewed it is "me, me, me...I, I, I...". I just don't think he adds anything, but slime, to the cause. And isn't there enough of that, everywhere? People like Dana Loesch are like the Tea Party equivalent of the mindless protesters at the Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations. They are all talking points, and no substance.

This is strictly my opinion, but much of the ideological logjams and arguments existing today are a direct result of Obama's approach to his presidency. He believed he could force things like Stimulus and Obamacare on everyone based on one simple premise: that the right would never care enough to get as well organized as the left has been for many years. He was wrong. So now the right is doing what the left has always done. Where once there was only Media Matters, there is now Big Government/Big Journalism. Where there was once only Huffington Post, there is now the Daily Caller. Where there was once just George Soros, there is now the Koch Brothers. Where there was once only DailyKos, there is now...well, okay, those idiots are in a league of their own, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I pin this on Obama because he had the absolute golden moment to be great. And this isn't so much what he did (stimulus/Obamacare), but how he did it. Instead of truly being a person who would ensure we aren't red states or blue states but united states....he became just another idiot career politician, saying one thing while meaning something else, all while approaching his responsibilities from a condescending position of "Screw you. We won. Eat your peas, get on the back of the bus, and STFU."

 

He single-handedly gave birth to a new conservative movement. Yes, it's messy, and no, they don't have a true voice to fill the vacuum for leadership, but in time it will. And until then, the freedom held by the Obama left to smear and orchestrate will be regularly called out by the Breitbart and Loesch's.

[DC Tom]

This is strictly my opinion, but much of the ideological logjams and arguments existing today are a direct result of Obama's approach to his presidency. He believed he could force things like Stimulus and Obamacare on everyone based on one simple premise: that the right would never care enough to get as well organized as the left has been for many years. He was wrong. So now the right is doing what the left has always done. Where once there was only Media Matters, there is now Big Government/Big Journalism. Where there was once only Huffington Post, there is now the Daily Caller. Where there was once just George Soros, there is now the Koch Brothers. Where there was once only DailyKos, there is now...well, okay, those idiots are in a league of their own, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I pin this on Obama because he had the absolute golden moment to be great. And this isn't so much what he did (stimulus/Obamacare), but how he did it. Instead of truly being a person who would ensure we aren't red states or blue states but united states....he became just another idiot career politician, saying one thing while meaning something else, all while approaching his responsibilities from a condescending position of "Screw you. We won. Eat your peas, get on the back of the bus, and STFU."

 

He single-handedly gave birth to a new conservative movement. Yes, it's messy, and no, they don't have a true voice to fill the vacuum for leadership, but in time it will. And until then, the freedom held by the Obama left to smear and orchestrate will be regularly called out by the Breitbart and Loesch's.

 

...because of the failed policies of George W. Bush.

[Buftex]

This is strictly my opinion, but much of the ideological logjams and arguments existing today are a direct result of Obama's approach to his presidency. He believed he could force things like Stimulus and Obamacare on everyone based on one simple premise: that the right would never care enough to get as well organized as the left has been for many years. He was wrong. So now the right is doing what the left has always done. Where once there was only Media Matters, there is now Big Government/Big Journalism. Where there was once only Huffington Post, there is now the Daily Caller. Where there was once just George Soros, there is now the Koch Brothers. Where there was once only DailyKos, there is now...well, okay, those idiots are in a league of their own, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I pin this on Obama because he had the absolute golden moment to be great. And this isn't so much what he did (stimulus/Obamacare), but how he did it. Instead of truly being a person who would ensure we aren't red states or blue states but united states....he became just another idiot career politician, saying one thing while meaning something else, all while approaching his responsibilities from a condescending position of "Screw you. We won. Eat your peas, get on the back of the bus, and STFU."

 

He single-handedly gave birth to a new conservative movement. Yes, it's messy, and no, they don't have a true voice to fill the vacuum for leadership, but in time it will. And until then, the freedom held by the Obama left to smear and orchestrate will be regularly called out by the Breitbart and Loesch's.

 

 

Wow! I guess, not surprisingly, we have completely different takes on this. But, I must say, this is the first time I have ever heard that the left was better at organizing than the right. As a leftie, I wish Obama had done what you are accusing him of.

 

In fact, I think that Bush Jr's greatest attribute was to push things through, no matter how much objection there was. I wish Obama had that back-bone. Also, I think your history of things is a little short...this has been going on forever. Are you forgetting Bush's "mandate"? The rise of the christian fundamentalists in the 80's?

[DC Tom]

Wow! I guess, not surprisingly, we have completely different takes on this. But, I must say, this is the first time I have ever heard that the left was better at organizing than the right. As a leftie, I wish Obama had done what you are accusing him of.

 

If the left organized in '08, it's because of the failed policies of the Bush administration.

 

Seriously...I've never seen the Democratic Party organized in my lifetime, except for between 2006 and 2010, when the "factions" (for lack of a better word) put their differences aside and all jumped on the "!@#$ Bush!" platform. Of course, that's only "organized" in as much as water going over a cliff is organized - it isn't, it's just all moving in the same general direction.

 

In fact, I think that Bush Jr's greatest attribute was to push things through, no matter how much objection there was. I wish Obama had that back-bone. Also, I think your history of things is a little short...this has been going on forever. Are you forgetting Bush's "mandate"? The rise of the christian fundamentalists in the 80's?

 

Bush, however, never faced a Congress as overtly contrary as Obama has now. Even beyond the first six years of Republican congresses, even Bush's Democrat-dominated congresses were pretty much rubber-stamping every damn thing they saw.

 

Bush probably would have done pretty well in a fight the likes of which Obama is fighting now (if only because he's not the type of intellect that can understand the other side of the fence - the confidence of dopiness, so to speak). But he never had to face one.

[Buftex]

This is strictly my opinion, but much of the ideological logjams and arguments existing today are a direct result of Obama's approach to his presidency. He believed he could force things like Stimulus and Obamacare on everyone based on one simple premise: that the right would never care enough to get as well organized as the left has been for many years. He was wrong. So now the right is doing what the left has always done. Where once there was only Media Matters, there is now Big Government/Big Journalism. Where there was once only Huffington Post, there is now the Daily Caller. Where there was once just George Soros, there is now the Koch Brothers. Where there was once only DailyKos, there is now...well, okay, those idiots are in a league of their own, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I pin this on Obama because he had the absolute golden moment to be great. And this isn't so much what he did (stimulus/Obamacare), but how he did it. Instead of truly being a person who would ensure we aren't red states or blue states but united states....he became just another idiot career politician, saying one thing while meaning something else, all while approaching his responsibilities from a condescending position of "Screw you. We won. Eat your peas, get on the back of the bus, and STFU."

 

He single-handedly gave birth to a new conservative movement. Yes, it's messy, and no, they don't have a true voice to fill the vacuum for leadership, but in time it will. And until then, the freedom held by the Obama left to smear and orchestrate will be regularly called out by the Breitbart and Loesch's.

 

I realize this is your opinion, but to say that Obama started the current climate in DC is really off...Bush JR ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") did precisely what you are accusing Obama of, after 9/11. He had everyone in the palm of his hand, both sides of the isle, and crapped all over them...and his motivations were questionable. That is what united lefties enough, to vote Obama in.

[....lybob]

This is strictly my opinion, but much of the ideological logjams and arguments existing today are a direct result of Obama's approach to his presidency. He believed he could force things like Stimulus and Obamacare on everyone based on one simple premise: that the right would never care enough to get as well organized as the left has been for many years. He was wrong. So now the right is doing what the left has always done. Where once there was only Media Matters, there is now Big Government/Big Journalism. Where there was once only Huffington Post, there is now the Daily Caller. Where there was once just George Soros, there is now the Koch Brothers. Where there was once only DailyKos, there is now...well, okay, those idiots are in a league of their own, but you get the point.

 

And yes, I pin this on Obama because he had the absolute golden moment to be great. And this isn't so much what he did (stimulus/Obamacare), but how he did it. Instead of truly being a person who would ensure we aren't red states or blue states but united states....he became just another idiot career politician, saying one thing while meaning something else, all while approaching his responsibilities from a condescending position of "Screw you. We won. Eat your peas, get on the back of the bus, and STFU."

 

He single-handedly gave birth to a new conservative movement. Yes, it's messy, and no, they don't have a true voice to fill the vacuum for leadership, but in time it will. And until then, the freedom held by the Obama left to smear and orchestrate will be regularly called out by the Breitbart and Loesch's.

I really wish Obama hadn't awaken the Koch brothers- it was so much better when they were keeping out of politics and merely twiddling their thumbs with- The Cato Institute, The Reason Foundation, The Heritage Foundation,Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, The Mercatus Center, George C. Marshall Institute, Institute for Energy Research,Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, American Legislative Exchange Council, etc, etc, etc.

[Rob's House]

I realize this is your opinion, but to say that Obama started the current climate in DC is really off...Bush JR ("I'm a uniter, not a divider") did precisely what you are accusing Obama of, after 9/11. He had everyone in the palm of his hand, both sides of the isle, and crapped all over them...and his motivations were questionable. That is what united lefties enough, to vote Obama in.

I don't really think this is a fair criticism. For all his shortcomings, Bush always showed respect to his opposition and always framed opposition as difference in policy opinions. No President in my lifetime has ever been as openly hostile towards his political opposition as Obama, who even has gone so far as to call American citizens who disagree with his politics "our enemies". You never heard anything like this from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush. It's really not even debatable. When I hear someone argue the point it just comes off as a knee jerk reaction to defend their guy.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Rob's House

[Buftex]

I don't really think this is a fair criticism. For all his shortcomings, Bush always showed respect to his opposition and always framed opposition as difference in policy opinions. No President in my lifetime has ever been as openly hostile towards his political opposition as Obama, who even has gone so far as to call American citizens who disagree with his politics "our enemies". You never heard anything like this from Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush. It's really not even debatable. When I hear someone argue the point it just comes off as a knee jerk reaction to defend their guy.

 

You really think that?

 

I couldn't disagree more with this. Bush may have been verbally respectful of his opposition, but he certainly did not act that way. It is abundantly clear that those around him were hostile to any opposition.

 

I guess it is our partisan ears, Obama has always held out the verbal olive branches...I think you are hearing what you want to hear. He came into office, his critics on the left say, bending over backwards to appease right opposition, and, in the process, watered everything down so much, it was useless. What Obama never seemed to get "these people hate you, they have no respect for you, and they don't want you here"...Hillary Clinton would have never fallen into this trap. The political system we have right now is very cynical, and I think Obama was a bit naive.

[IDBillzFan]

I really wish Obama hadn't awaken the Koch brothers- it was so much better when they were keeping out of politics and merely twiddling their thumbs with- The Cato Institute, The Reason Foundation, The Heritage Foundation,Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, The Mercatus Center, George C. Marshall Institute, Institute for Energy Research,Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, American Legislative Exchange Council, etc, etc, etc.

I understand what you're saying. My point is that most conservatives in the fight today (like myself) were barely even aware those groups existed until we suddenly realized what a mess we were in with Obama and started doing a little hunting. As a direct result of the eat-your-peas way Obama conducts himself, their audiences are now larger, louder, smarter and stronger, to the extent that Obama is actually -- right now -- standing in front of crowds making stupid statements like "the GOP is holding up my jobs bill" when anyone who truly cares knows that his own party is against his jobs bill as well.

 

He's desperate. He's throwing the gun because he's out of bullets. And try as he might, everyone understands he has no one else to blame but himself because, in the end, he has the leadership skills of a gnat.

Edited October 18, 2011 by LABillzFan

[Rob's House]

You really think that?

 

I couldn't disagree more with this. Bush may have been verbally respectful of his opposition, but he certainly did not act that way. It is abundantly clear that those around him were hostile to any opposition.

 

I guess it is our partisan ears, Obama has always held out the verbal olive branches...I think you are hearing what you want to hear. He came into office, his critics on the left say, bending over backwards to appease right opposition, and, in the process, watered everything down so much, it was useless. What Obama never seemed to get "these people hate you, they have no respect for you, and they don't want you here"...Hillary Clinton would have never fallen into this trap. The political system we have right now is very cynical, and I think Obama was a bit naive.

The comparison isn't even close. First off, Bush and everyone around him were personally smeared unmercifully throughout not just news media, but pop culture media. Hating Bush was the popular thing to do. You may not have noticed because you were part of that crowd (or because you old guys aren't privy to all the new **** ).

 

I'm alway curious what the actual legislative examples of Bush forcing his agenda on the unwilling populace.

 

As far as Obama, the idea of his verbal olive branch couldn't be further from the truth. His stance from the outset was a classless and amateurish display of I won so get in the back of the bus. It probably doesn't seem like it to you, because you identify yourself as part of his team and know he's talking to us, but he looks down his nose and talks in his patronizing fatherly type talking down to the misbehaving children. As far as I'm concerned he's just a pop-culture celebrity who won a popularity contest and got to play president for four years and thus has no basis for his hubris.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Rob's House

[Buftex]

The comparison isn't even close. First off, Bush and everyone around him were personally smeared unmercifully throughout not just news media, but pop culture media. Hating Bush was the popular thing to do. You may not have noticed because you were part of that crowd (or because you old guys aren't privy to all the new **** ).

I'm alway curious what the actual legislative examples of Bush forcing his agenda on the unwilling populace.

 

As far as Obama, the idea of his verbal olive branch couldn't be further from the truth. His stance from the outset was a classless and amateurish display of I won so get in the back of the bus. It probably doesn't seem like it to you, because you identify yourself as part of his team and know he's talking to us, but he looks down his nose and talks in his patronizing fatherly type talking down to the misbehaving children. As far as I'm concerned he's just a pop-culture celebrity who won a popularity contest and got to play president for four years and thus has no basis for his hubris.

 

Well, going to war under false pretenses is the one that comes most immediately to mind.

 

As for the rest, I honestly don't have any idea what you are talking about. And, I am not saying that to be a smart-ass. I feel like we are in some sort of "mirror universe" here. My memories are that of a very condescending Republican leadership, who, basically have been contrary to the president from day one.

 

To this day, I think Obama has been far more (and too) compromising to make nice with Republicans who have been, basically, functioning as obstructionists for the last two years.

[Taro T]

The "news" networks are essentially video op-ed channels... I might make the argument that CNN is much more in the center than the others, but I know most would object. MSNBC and FOX are the extremes. You watch these two channels with any regularity (and I do, I admit) you would think we live in two very different countries.

 

But, as to your point about Sarandan, Penn, etc...I don't know that they have as much clout as you are giving them. I admire Sean Penn for the fact that he seems sincere in wanting to affect positive change for his causes, but I also realize, he is no expert in politics. I don't hold a grudge against him for using whatever power his name brings him, to shine light on causes that are important to him. There are plenty of conservative leaning entertainers who could do the same, should they choose. If they think "coming out" as conservatives will hurt their show business careers, those are the breaks...but there is always strength in numbers.

 

But, be honest, this doesn't go on with both sides? Herman Cain is running around saying that liberals have the goal of "ruining the American economy" isn't a little over the top? Hannity, and his ilk, constantly saying that Obama is a socialist, to play into the fears of the ignorant, isn't a little disingenuous?

 

From my view, Breitbart is running around like he is some sort of champion of the Tea Party movement, like he wants to make sure it gets fair representation in the media...which is fine. I applaud that effort. I really wish that movement had a rational, coherent spokesperson. Breitbart isn't it, though. I get the feeling he is into this for very personal reasons...whenever I see him interviewed it is "me, me, me...I, I, I...". I just don't think he adds anything, but slime, to the cause. And isn't there enough of that, everywhere? People like Dana Loesch are like the Tea Party equivalent of the mindless protesters at the Occupy Wallstreet demonstrations. They are all talking points, and no substance.

Well, it depends upon what your definition of 'their goal' is. They don't DESIRE the outcome of their policies to be screwing the economic pooch; unfortunately, the enactment of their policies have effectively screwed the economic pooch.

 

So, if you are looking at results as 'their goal' then you are correct, they don't want to tank the economy (any worse than it already is). But if you are looking at the implementation of policies that they favor and the (apparently unintended) consequences of those polices, then we're getting to a point where there's some truth to what Herman is saying.

 

Well, going to war under false pretenses is the one that comes most immediately to mind.

 

As for the rest, I honestly don't have any idea what you are talking about. And, I am not saying that to be a smart-ass. I feel like we are in some sort of "mirror universe" here. My memories are that of a very condescending Republican leadership, who, basically have been contrary to the president from day one.

 

To this day, I think Obama has been far more (and too) compromising to make nice with Republicans who have been, basically, functioning as obstructionists for the last two years.

Which of the 17 reasons given for going to war in Iraq were the false ones? (Sorry, it's hard to keep up sometimes.)

 

Or were you referring to the military actions in Libya and Yemen or the one in sub-Sahara Africa we just joined? (Sorry, just kidding w/ that last Q. I know you didn't mean any of those. )