Glenn Beck has gone righteous again. And I agree with him. Some silly bimbo with LA Weekly who is probably just old enough to be off of her parents’ health insurance policy wrote an inane review of the film, 'Lone Survivor'. She has obviously never read the powerful account of a mission gone wrong or met Marcus Luttrell, the Navy SEAL who survived to tell the real life story. Beck discussed the movie review that appeared in some rag called LA Weekly and invited Miss Nicholson (the snarky, talentless author of the review) to sit down with Marcus Luttrell and defend her piece.
Here is the unedited version of the first half of her "film review":
Here's a movie that'll flop in Kabul. Lone Survivor, the latest by Battleship director Peter Berg, is a jingoistic snuff film about a Navy SEAL squadron outgunned by the Taliban in the mountainous Kunar province. After four soldiers — played with muscles and machismo by Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster — get ID'd by Afghan goat herders, they're in a race to climb to the top of the nearest summit and summon an airlift before these civilians can sprint to the nearest village and alert local leader Ahmad Shah. It doesn't go well.
Berg's flick bleeds blood red, bone-fracture white, and bruise blue. It's based on the memoir Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by sole evacuee Marcus Luttrell (played by Wahlberg) — and that's only a spoiler if you've ignored the title. Luttrell didn't exactly write his book. Rather than sitting in front of a word processor, he was back in action in Iraq. Instead, the United States Navy hired British novelist Patrick Robinson, who, among other embellishments, upped the number of enemy Taliban fighters from 10 to 200. Hey, whatever, man. Those aliens in Battleship weren't real, either.
Lone Survivor's problems are more complex than its Rambo-esque exuberance for machine-gun fire. The near-wordless second half is a deadly dubstep of bullets and snare drums punctuated with the occasional curse. Here's 90 seconds of dialogue transcribed in its entirety: "Goddamn, this sucks!" "Fuck you!" "Fuck!" "Damn, fucking burns!" This doesn't help advance the plot, which can pretty much be summed up as: Don't die. And the film actually gets worse when the guys open their mouths.
One can only imagine Nicholson, too plain to get a television gig, chugging her non-fat latte at her Lenovo laptop that her parents bought her for Christmas two years ago, dreaming of the day she will be followed around by the paparazzi like Khloe Kardashian.
Alas, like so many of these ignorant Carrie Bradshaws, Nicholson took to twitter to defend her ridiculous review and pour on some more snark.
Glenn Beck listeners: My review calls the SEALS heroes. My problems were with the director, not Luttrell: http://t.co/QgtG1Wie1u
“All too early in the [Obama] administration suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me as I tried to manage the relationship between the commander in chief and his military leaders.” - Robert Gates from Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.”
Bob Woodward reported in The Washington Times that former defense secretary Robert Gates criticized President Obama’s leadership and strategy in Afghanistan in his new candid book “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.” Gates was named Secretary of Defense under President Bush in 2006 after serving for almost 3 decades on the National Security Council and later as the Director of the CIA.
According to his book, Gates said about Obama that he “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his. For him, it’s all about getting out.”
Woodward wrote that Gates’ analysis of what happened was “contradictory,” highly emotional” and that Gates wrote the book with a “sometimes bitter tone.”
Excerpts from the Woodward's review of the Gates' book:
It is rare for a former Cabinet member, let alone a defense secretary occupying a central position in the chain of command, to publish such an antagonistic portrait of a sitting president.
Leveling one of the more serious charges that a defense secretary could make against a commander in chief sending forces into combat, Gates asserts that Obama had more than doubts about the course he had charted in Afghanistan. The president was “skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail,” Gates writes in Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. “I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their mission,” Gates writes.
In Gates’s highly emotional account, Obama remains uncomfortable with the inherited wars and distrustful of the military that is providing him options. Their different worldviews produced a rift that, at least for Gates, became personally wounding and impossible to repair.
In “Duty,” Gates complains repeatedly that confidence and trust were what he felt was lacking in his dealings with Obama and his team. “Why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody, as I have detailed in these pages?” he writes. “Why was I so often angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?”
Woodward’s article in The Washington Post points out Gate’s ambivalence and contradictory statements from a liberal’s perspective, but Woodward has a point. Gates did not stand up against Obama’s political machinations and putting our troops in harm’s way. I suspect standing up against the Obama administration at the time would have been much more difficult than writing a hit (and run) piece after you have retired.
On October 17, Saudi Arabia was elected to a temporary,
2-year membership on the United Nations Security Council. The election was by secret ballot of the
193-member General Assembly. The Saudis had lobbied for a temporary seat for
years because even though temporary members of the Security Council are not as
powerful as the permanent members (they do not have veto authority, for
example), membership is still considered something of a big deal. Council members are considered to be leaders
within the UN and they can shape the agenda of the General Assembly if they are
diligent and assiduous. As the Saudi
Ambassador indicated immediately following the announcement of the election
results, they were very pleased, as were the other Gulf Arab states.
But on the 18 October, the Saudis did something that has
never been done in the history of the UN, they announced they would not be
serving on the Security Council, even as temporary members. Because diplomacy is so personal, it was King
Abdullah who no doubt directed this volte
face which took the diplomatic community by storm. The Saudis have typically been inclined to
work quietly behind the scenes– however this time they came out swinging. They condemned both the UN Security Council
AND the Obama Administration.
But the only thing surprising about this tempest is that it
is… surprising. Last month the Saudis
skipped an offer to address the General Assembly which they have done every September
in the past, and this is a most curious absence if they were still lobbying to
be a member of the Security Council. A
year ago, the Saudis had expressed displeasure that the US had not supported
them in dealing with Bahraini (Shiite, Iranian-inspired) protestors during the
absurdly named “Arab Spring.” Likewise,
it takes no imagination to realize the Saudis would be angered by the betrayal
and replacement of Mubarak, the Sunni strongman of Egypt, whom they viewed as a
surrogate for themselves. And they could
not help but notice that when Obama supported Morsi over Mubarak, he was
anything but neutral in the matter. The
Saudis also let it be known that they would grant over-flight rights for a US/Israeli
attack on Iran, which Americans have chosen to ignore. Of course, there is the lingering issue of
the Palestinians, but that problem (like the poor) will always be with us
because the US and the Security Council have no apparent interest in solving
it.
But of greatest concern to the Saudis is Barack Obama’s grotesque
mishandling of Syria and Iran. This should be of greatest concern to anyone desirous of peace in the
Near/Middle East. After claiming the existence of a red line beyond which Assad
cannot go in his dealing with the Syrian rebels, what did Obama do? He didn’t even lift a finger when the Syrians
used chemical weapons against the Sunni segment of their population. Instead, he jumped at the first suggestion
(the Russian option) that allowed him to avoid conflict. From the Saudi standpoint Obama is precisely
what he appears to be: a gutless coward.
After condemning the use of CBW against the Syrian populace, the
Security Council then shifted and agreed that the Shiite leadership of Syria
could do penance by cleaning up their CBW storage sites. This drove the Saudis over the edge because
there are some 50 such sites in Syria, and it leaves the Syrians essentially
free to gas the Sunni segments of their population while the lengthy clean-up
process is completed.
With respect to Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal,
Obama seems to be capitulating without any of the bellicose rhetoric. His arms are wide open and this can only mean
the Iranians will finally have nuclear weapons unless the Israelis act. It has been repeatedly proven that the Iranians
have been stalling for time for years while it finishes up the fuel enrichment
process for an atomic bomb. Now is the perfect time for them to finish the
job. The Saudis think Obama will not prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons because he is a coward, and, besides, Obama
believes in nuclear parity. Who can
vouchsafe this? Make no mistake: King Abdullah
will not go without a nuclear bomb of his own as a deterrent to Iran. And he pays in cash- price is no object.
It should come as no surprise then that the Saudis are both
upset and feel hopeless, especially because they would lack veto authority on
the Security Council which could have given them a means of dealing with Syria
and Iran. Contrary to the incredibly absurd analyses published in the wake of
the Saudi refusal, the Saudis are not (1) bad allies who enjoy whining from
time to time, (2) attempting to impose the Islamic community (the ummah)
worldwide; or (3) trying to cover up their practice of gender inequality. [All
of these opinions have appeared in the “respectable” press.]
Posca believes the Saudis mean what they say because (in addition to turning down a place on the
Security Council) they have actually done two other important things. First, their intelligence chief Prince Bandar
has announced they will sever ties with the CIA in Syria and work instead with
the French and British. Now many things
can be and have been said of Prince Bandar, but one thing you cannot say with any credence is that he
is anti-American. If HE is talking about
severing ties with CIA, things are serious.
Second, they have indicated they will begin shopping for
weapons away from the US market. This
alone is alarming. Those who claim it is
the surest proof they are bluffing could not be more wrong. As Posca has noted, the Saudis always pay in
cash and they pay top dollar. No doubt
other nations are already lining up to sell them heavy armor (Germany, South
Africa, Israel), jet fighters (Euro Zone), and artillery (Scandinavia). Hell, it would not surprise Posca to learn
the Israelis sold them the Israeli version of AWACS.
Make no mistake; the Middle East is in turmoil. The Iranians are on the cusp of having the
bomb, and are terrifying the Gulf Arabs by inviting a pre-emptive strike by the
Israelis. The Iraqis and Syrians (who
are predominantly Shiite) are lining up in alliance with the Shiite
Iranians. The Sunni Saudis and the
predominantly Sunni Gulf Arabs are forming an alliance tighter than anything
they have had before. Posca suspects the
Peninsula Shield force will be expanded and strengthened.
As all of us should know by now, Sunnis and Shiites despise
one other with a burning passion and will renew hostilities at the drop of a
hat. If the Iranians get the bomb, the
Saudis will then get the bomb, and everything is up for grabs as the balance of
power readjusts. And if Pakistan is
drawn into a conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it is likely that India
will count that as a prime opportunity to finally attack Pakistan in
Afghanistan. The Indians are not just a
bunch of holy men squatting beside the road.
Obama has created an amazing mess, making Jimmy Carter look
like a genuine statesman. The Israelis
have been alienated; the Egyptians hate his guts; he screwed up Libya; he has
destroyed the US-Saudi relationship; and he has encouraged the Iranians and the
Saudis to acquire the bomb. Let us hope
that Obama does not attempt to do what he seems to do so easily, come to the
conclusion that in order to salvage his pathetic legacy, he must sacrifice even more blood of American service members. Unfortunately, Obama never met a member of the
Armed Forces whose life he would not waste.
So, instead of slaughtering more Americans, why don’t we try
to mend fences with the Saudis? Why
don’t we accept that they mean what they say?
After all, no one understands the world-historical significance of Saudi
Arabia better than the Saudis. And the
Saudis are no doubt speaking for all of the Gulf Arab states as well as Sunnis
everywhere.
Perhaps a little American humility is in order. Maybe we should pay attention to ground truth
and stop applying silly interpretive templates to the situation. Although there are those who are eager to see
the Muslim world in flames, no one benefits from no holds barred nuclear
conflict.
We need to talk. My therapist said I should avoid contacting
you during my "cooling off" period, but I can’t squelch letting you know how I
really feel. You've let me down, and it can’t be repaired. This is the last time.
The fact that I caught you with those hot Latinos, inviting
them to “come in from the shadows” is too much to bear. I can’t compete with
their refusal to learn English, their positive TB tests, their suspicion of tap
water and inability to work a modern toilet. Sure they are spicy, fun and
hardworking. But you cheated on me and you know it.
Then as if the cheating weren’t enough, you had the nerve to
ask them to move in. Permanently. Full citizenship. You ignore their evil ways –
the drunk driving, stolen social security numbers and constant scamming of
welfare benefits – I guess you are seduced by warm tortillas and colorful piñatas.
Where we first met things were wonderful. You could do no
wrong. I could swim in your deep brown doe eyes as they scanned the room while
you grilled Benghazi witnesses.
I thought we had the same values when you relentlessly pursued the
religious violations of the Affordable Care Act, cronyism of TARP, WikiLeaks
and abuse in Afghanistan.
You paid attention to me on television and seduced me on
Twitter – I felt like I was the only girl in the room. Listening to you drone on
in that accentless monotone on CSPAN, I felt like I could curl up and go to
sleep knowing the nation was in good hands.
But now, after the betrayal, I am trying to recapture my
life and gain a sense of self back. For so long we were together as “Republicans.”
But it’s hard to get my own identity back when I don’t belong with you
anymore. I have gone through the appropriate stages of anger, remorse, and
sadness.
Don’t get me wrong; you really were great. I know you’ll find the right
moderate girl, but that just isn’t me right now. I would never want to do anything
to hurt you, and I hope we can still be friends.
I'm totally ready to release you from my life. I just started
participating in a weekly encounter group – Twitter therapy really does work! Sadly, I found out that I'm not the first girl you've treated this way.
Honey, It’s not you; it’s me.
Love always and forever,
LambChop
P.S. Hey. I hope this isn't awkward. But I've been thinking about that cute Trey Gowdy - can I get his number from you?
Hollywood
moonbats are right to be disturbed by recent revelations of the abuse of
privacy by the NSA and the spying on American citizens. I support this video
and the ideas communicated, but it does not go far enough. It is, however worth
a peek.
How the producers
of this slick important piece had the nerve to use video of Richard Nixon (as
opposed to Obama) is simply jaw-dropping.
Obama has
declared in public that the U. S. Constitution is no longer valid.
Obama up a
system of government “Czars” in order to bypass congressional authority.
Forced churches
to accept objectionable practices at their medical institutions.
Has increased US
government debt at unsustainable rates and wasted stimulus funds.
Smuggled
thousands illegal firearms to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in murder of
200 Mexican citizens and at least 2 American citizens.
Keeps an
unpublished enemies list and has used drone strikes to kill three American
citizens (one of them 16- years- old) without due process.
Waged war in
Libya without Congressional input or approval. Aided Al-Qaeda and Muslim
Brotherhood with weapons and money in order to overthrow governments of
multiple sovereign Middle East nations.
Dictates
new law via abuse of executive orders (examples with immigration dream act
and gun control laws) bypassing congress, and uses executive departments
to enforce laws selectively.
Deserted the
American Ambassador to Libya and other Americans while they were under
attack and conducted cover-up of said action, failing to pursue perpetrators.
Enlisted IRS to
punish political enemies punitively with audits and other abuses.
Implemented
Obamacare which affixes a financial penalty on Americans who fail to
purchase health insurance in order to regulate behavior – regulatory
powers not granted in the Constitution.
Cpl. Hargis was wounded after an Afghan woman in Kandahar Province detonated a suicide vest bomb which set off 13 other explosive devices. The blasts killed 4 members of Hargis’ 3rd Army Ranger Battalion and wounded 12 other American soldiers.
Hargis wounds are severe and he was thought to be unconscious when his commanding officer entered into the hospital room to present Hargis with the Purple Heart for the wounds he suffered earlier that day.
No one expected any response from Hargis when he suddenly saluted.
In case Americans have forgotten, the United States is still
at war in Afghanistan today. Obama promised that 34,000 troops (about half of the number currently there ) will
no longer remain in country in 2014. This draw down is based on his belief that the United States
has “achieved its mission of dismantling
the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” Obama’s surge has cost about
$30 billion per year and has resulted in many unintended consequences: the
expansion of Al-Qaeda franchises and a remarkable success for the opium trade.
According to the ISAF Report
released over the summer:
While the ANSF are making real progress in security, the
challenges faced by Afghans and the international community are primarily
psychological and political. There is still widespread uncertainty amongst the
Afghan people and in the region concerning the post-2014 environment. This
uncertainty causes unhelpful hedging behavior. The overall perception of
security is affected by the Taliban’s high profile attacks (HPAs), which is nothing more than a campaign
of fear, murder and intimidation.
The Haqqani
Network (HQN) remains active and seeks to support Taliban objectives by
conducting HPAs in Kabul. Overall, AQ and HQN maintain only limited capacity to
train, plan and project influence beyond their safe havens in the East.
Interestingly since the United States has been in Afghanistan
“nation-building,” Afghanistan’s GDP
grew by 66%. It seems that democracy in
action works? This miraculous growth of
GDP is based on ONE commodity - opium.
Interestingly the export raw opium is a thing of the past in
Afghanistan, and now the main export is chemically produced heroin (from the
opium) which has been possible with the advent of new factories designed to
produce heroin from the raw opium. The heroin is available for export to Russia
and Europe.
From Pravda: Since
the start of the U.S. counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, the volume
of drug production in the country has grown 2.5 times. For the time being,
Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of opium poppy, which is used worldwide for the
production of heroin.
Obama’s actions have destabilized the region and emboldened Al-Qaeda, ensuring that Iraq is an Iranian client and helping to promote an alliance
between a stronger Pakistan and a weakened Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has morphed
into a more sophisticated syndicate while Afghanistan’s opium trade has
progressed from that of a third world grower to a first class heroin exporter. Mission accomplished.
Obama’s foreign policy is autobiographical. It is filled
with platitudes based on a nonsensical understanding of the casual American
student, numbed by the lethargy of liberalism and designed by those impressed by their own participation
trophies. Obama’s half-assed swipes at global leadership are tinged with
ideology of multiculturalism, embracing Islam as something other than a
death cult and narcissism. He has no more idea about the geopolitical
ramifications of the U.S. involvement in the Middle East than he is able to describe
how to bake a Twinkie or shoe a Budweiser Clydesdale.
Obama sat down with Charlie Rose last night –Obama lied,
stuttered, and smack-talked about Syria. Rose asked President Obama his new
Syria policy. Obama bristled and claimed it was not “new”: "I'm not sure you can characterize this as a new policy. This is
consistent with the policy that I've had throughout. Really, what we're trying
to do is take sides against extremists of all sorts and in favor of people who
are in favor of moderation, tolerance, representative government, and over the
long-term, stability and prosperity for the people of Syria," said Obama.
Obama: "What I’m
saying is, that if you haven’t been in the Situation Room, pouring through
intelligence and meeting directly with our military folks and asking, what are
all our options, and examining what are all the consequences, and understanding
that for example, if you set up a no-fly zone, that you may not be actually
solving the problem on the zone…”
Later Obama made sure to take shots at the previous
administration, despite the fact that he has merely ramped up the worst aspects
of previous foreign policy and ignored the rest:
Obama: “We know what
it's like to rush into a war in the Middle East without having thought it
through. And there are elements within the Middle East who see this entirely
through the prism of a Shia-Sunni conflict and want the United States to simply
take the side of the Sunnis. And that I do not think serves American
institutes. As I said before, the distinction I make is between extremists and
those who are recognized in a 21st century world that the way the Middle East
is going to succeed is when you have governments that meet the aspirations of
their people, that are tolerant, that are not sectarian. And working through
that is something that we have to do in deliberate fashion. So when I hear
debates out there, on the one hand, folks saying, you know, 'Katie, bar the
door, let's just go in and knock out Syria' --"
Recent Comments