An Online Magazine Dedicated To The Open Discussion of Current Events, Politics, Environmental Issues, Popular Culture, Sports and Slapping Down Idiotarians as Needed.
Now With 40% Fewer Grammatical Errors.
Let's be honest, if the Benghazi incident happened when Bush or even Romney was/were in office, it would be non-stop wall-to-wall coverage of the cover-up and people calling for the heads of the Sec State, VP and the president himself. It's bullshit and we all know it.
With that said, I can't get past the revelations coming out daily about how we let these men die. Today it was revealed that we had either AC-130 gunships (unconfirmed but I'm not buying the excuse) or an armed drone in the region and the target was being painted by one of the SEAL's. Someone, really high up made the decision that these guys were expendable. That is not only unforgivable but un-American.
I hope Romney wins simply to expose this for what it really was; a president known for voting present on every important issue voted present when American lives were on the line and opted to not assist them in any way.
Harry Truman famously had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here". Obama should have one that says "the buck stops..."with arrows pointing in every direction but toward him.
The first rule of leadership is that you are responsible for the good and the bad. A true leader humbly passes the credit to those who work for him and accepts the blame when things go wrong. Unfortunately we have Obama so that ain't happening. The man gladly took credit for killing bin-Laden when he was half a world away but is still blaming Bush for everything that is wrong.
The Libyan terror attack that resulted in the death of the first ambassador killed on duty since 1979 and three others was a serious intel disaster. It may have been the fault of the CIA, DIA, NSA or any other alphabet agency but ultimately it was Obama's fault. So what do you think he did? Did he say, yes, this was an act of terror on a day we should have been prepared and I take full responsibility? Silly you, of course not, he got one of his underlings to take the rap.
This blog and many others knew that it was a terror attack right away but to admit that would mean Obama would take a hit on the whole lame "I killed bin-Laden and I'm the baddest mother on the planet because I got bin-Laden" edifice they built so the administration obfuscated and said it was a mob that got out of control. Anyone with any military knowledge laughed. Our fearless leader even sent his UN Ambassador out to the morning shows well after it was clear to parrot those talking points.
So now that that ridiculous story has been proven to be a lie, Obama needs someone--anyone to take the rap as long as it's not him. Enter the Director of National Intelligence groveling:
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/28/170078/intelligence-office-says-it-got.html#storylink=cpy
“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Sean Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”
Let's play a game and pretend this is true. We're supposed to believe that the lead intelligence expert in the nation would actually say to the President that it was a mob that formed up and used finely sighted mortars to attack the ambassador in a secret safe-house and used direct and indirect fire to assault the house?
If that's the case, Obama appointed the worst DNI in history and should lose his job for it along with the DNI.
This is an out and out lie and it should be the turning point of the election if--and it's a big if--Romney hits him on it. It occurred on 9/11 and we know that al-Qaeda loves important dates. I have no intel background and I saw it right away.
We need a leader who cares about the country and his people. Obama cares about no one but Obama and it's led us to the abyss. It was also a pussy move to release this on a Friday when it will be glossed over.
It's funny, as much as I despise Ron Paul and his wild band of zealots, I like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Sen. Paul is a man of vision and common sense, the kind of man that probably only could have gotten elected in a state like Kentucky during a Tea Party revolution.
Rand Paul gets it. He gets that we spend too much money and it's not just a Democratic ailment. He gets that socialized medicine will destroy the greatest health care system ever and he is one who has had to negotiate that system as an MD.
But more importantly, he knows right from wrong and opts for right all the time. He is not afraid to tussle with anyone if he believes he's in the right and has threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill if he isn't at the very least heard out.
Today, he pens a piece in the Washington Times advocating that we shut off the spigot to Egypt, Libya and Pakistan because, well, they hate us and have been playing us for decades. Here's a portion but of course read the entire essay:
Last week, I requested that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, provide a brief amount of time for debate and a vote on my amendment to end U.S. aid to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. Yet, Senate Democrat leadership blocked it. I will continue my effort this week and have announced my intentions to stop all Senate business with a filibuster.
You and I have been reminded that our enemies are relentless, but we were also reminded that our so-called allies are often not acting like allies at all. We send billions of taxpayer dollars abroad and what do we get in return? Disrespect, disdain and, ultimately, violence.
American taxpayer dollars should not go to Libya until the murderers are delivered to justice. Nor should they go to Egypt until the Egyptians prove that they are willing and able to protect our embassy. Finally, not one more penny of American taxpayer dollars should go to Pakistan until the doctor who helped us get bin Laden is freed.
Amen, brother.
Let's start with Egypt. The Egyptians signed a peace treaty while being lead by Anwar Sadat. Sadat risked a lot and ultimately died for his actions at the hands of Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Muslim Brotherhood gunmen. As a thank you to Sadat who suffered condemnation throughout the Middle East, the US gave about a billion dollars to Egypt. This continued during the time Hosni Mubarak was in power.
Mubarak was overthrown last year and "elections' saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power. They have set Egypt back decades instituting sharia law and curtailing the rights of women. They also did nothing while our embassy was overrun last week and an al-Qaeda flag was hoisted where ours once had been before it was burned.
Libya is another animal. In the aftermath of the NATO victory over Gadaffi, money was pledged and money was sent. Last week on 9/11, armed militants murdered the ambassador and three other people in a RPG and machine gun attack.
But Pakistan is the real problem. We needed Pakistan to aid us in the War on Terror and our decade-plus conflict against the Taliban. We expected them to be straight shooters but of all the nations in that region, Pakistan is the shadiest character of all. The Pakistani intelligence service ISI was simultaneously smiling at us while hiding bin-Laden. They pledged to be nice and were allegedly behind the deadly attacks in Mumbai. Reports say they've been supporting the Taliban while cashing our checks and, as Sen. Paul notes, have tortured and jailed the doctor who helped us capture bin-Laden (partially because of leaks within the Obama administration).
So yes, as Paul notes, it's time to shut the tap off. If you can't play nice, we won';t support you. Let's see how long the Muslim Brotherhood survives without American largess.
Of course the Russians will step in and try to reclaim their place on the world stage but the Russians will not abide Chechnyan's training in terror camps in Libya or Pakistani's exporting weapons to Dagestan.
China may try to step in but they have no where near the global reach militarily that we have and it would be a difficult task to offer protection.
I agree with Sen. Paul, it's high time we offer the carrot and whack the hell out of them with the stick if they don't play nice. President Bush needed Pakistan, we don't anymore. Bring the boys home and redirect the funds we give the three nations above into our military resources at home.
We warned you that voting for a man with no experience because it felt good was a horrible idea. Hillary Clinton warned you that some react to the 3 AM phone call and questioned whether her opponent had the abilities needed to answer it and dictate and strategy. John McCain told us the consequences of electing a shady Chicago "community organizer" would result in chaos around the world. But many didn't listen and as one of Obama's spiritual leaders once noted "the chickens have come home to roost". You called all of us racist and refused to stop screaming "yes we can" long enough to see how factual our statements were.
Obama's self-belief that he had the intellectual power to calm the Mid-East have been laid to waste. When the opportunity arose to assist in protecting a long-standing, mostly secular yet brutal dictator in Egypt arose, we said that to allow this man to be ousted would result in the rise of radical Islam in a crucial nation in the region. We knew that a liberalized Egypt was the only way to counter Islamofascism and the void left would be filled by the Muslim Brotherhood and local salafist's who want a pan-Muslim mega-state reaching from Morocco to Pakistan and further.
We said to do nothing but dither while a nascent rebellion began to rise in the deeply radical and destabilizing nation of Iran would result in a perception of weakness from the Muslim world you said nothing and supported your clearly unprepared president.
We said that launching another war in a country that already had a history of attacking the US but was led by another tyrant who was coming around to the concept of American power, you cheered your hero on and did not think about the long-term consequences for the US. You did however play up the conflict for short-term political game because the only thing that matters to you is to be in power and hold influence and the purse strings.
So here we sit watching our embassies attacked, our ambassador savagely murdered and the US flag burned. This is the consequences of your votes. Radical Islam is counter to everything you hold dear: gay rights, women's rights, abortion, secularism and yet, you support a man who has set the rights of millions of people back a century or more.
And please stop with the silly notion that this was all because of a poorly-edited You Tube video. You just sound inane. This was a well-planned and orchestrated attack on sovereign US territory that was carefully planned to occur on the day that many Muslims hold dear, the day they inflicted 3,000 deaths on the US. Does one actually want to argue that people who raise their children this way need any provocation other than our mere existence?
Also, just stop with the Romney bashing because your savior dropped the ball and his people instituted policies that would not allow Marines to carry loaded weapons in a deeply hostile nation.
Please stop blaming former President Bush for this because I recall that on January 20, 2009 Egypt was stable and Gadaffi was trying to mend his errant ways in Libya. Both nations are now wastelands with numerous sects fighting to see who can be more radical and more anti-American.
No liberals, you elected a man who was easily the most unprepared for the task he won. He threw our money to his cronies, rammed through a horrible health care bill, alienated the one true ally we have in the region and actually believed that he was so gifted as a person and orator that he could meet with Ahmedinejad without pre-conditions and get him to reconsider his position. You elected a man who shirks any responsibility for anything remotely unpopular while blaming his predecessor as often as possible.
We told you that being the president of the greatest nation on Earth was difficult. It's not just meeting with Beyonce and Jay-Z but meeting with Netanyahu and Karzai and explaining the American position in straight-forward terms. We told you that security relied on intelligence and ones ability to act on it to protect our citizens. You scoffed at the notion that Obama could handle it and continue to do so even though actionable intelligence appears to have been discovered.
No, leadership is not fundraising, making deals on the golf course and meeting Olympians. Leadership is standing out front and--using either the stick or the carrot--moving the nation and the world into the next era. Obama has never led anyone to do anything of consequence that bettered US interests and has in fact done many that have harmed them.
I felt that another four years of Obama would cripple us both socially and economically but after this last week, I'm not really sure we can survive another four months until inauguration day.
American intelligence officials are now saying that al-Qaeda was responsible for recent bombings in Syria designed to further incite regime opponents. They also claim that al-Qaeda is not new to the insurgency but has been part of the uprising since the beginning.
The vengeful part of me thinks this is excellent since Bashar Assad is now fighting violent insurgents in his own backyard after assisting insurgents battling the US in Iraq. Another part says that this could be the spark that truly sets the Middle East ablaze.
A year ago, we watched as Tunisia and Egypt overthrew despotic regimes with Libya doing the same--with NATO help--later in the year. We've also watched as the vacuum created by the downfall of the dictators has been filled by hard line Islamist's with a goal of changing these states into Muslim-only nations with Sharia being the law of the land. Al-Qaeda stands to benefit from these new regimes more than any other group. Zawahiri needs state sponsorship to continue his jihad and now he may just have it in northern Africa thanks to the disarray brought on by the uprisings.
But back to Syria. If the insurgency in Syria is successful and Assad is ousted, does anyone really believe that a moderate will take over? Does the Obama administration as a whole and Hillary Clinton in particular really expect that a new Syria will become a democracy and elect a secular leader? No, al-Qaeda will push for some group in the mold of the Muslim Brotherhood to ascend and asset them in doing so. Essentially we'd see a caliphate from Morocco to Pakistan (except Shiite-led Iran) led by like-minded Muslims who wish ill-will to the US and our allies.
And what about Israel? Can Israel idly sit by while Syria and Egypt continue down the road to becoming a Pakistan clone? Of course they can't and if Syria falls, it will not be long until Jordan and Lebanon do as well. Yes, Assad is a thug and a despot but he's also managed to keep Syria stable after his vile father died and went to hell. But he's a thug and despot that we know and he's predictable. The same when Mubarak led Egypt, we knew a thugocracy was better than theocracy. Israel will have to protect itself and no one with any understanding of the history of the region can honestly say that these new regimes will be peaceful towards their only non-Muslim neighbor. The conflagration that will arise is scary as hell to consider. A massed Islamic army would be very disconcerting to Israel and once the fighting starts, the US will be forced to aid Israel while China and Russia will reap huge benefits from double-dealing and arms deals.
Am I saying we should prop up Assad? No f-ing way. What I am saying is that we should learn from what happened in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia and not be so quick to fan any flames against Boy Assad because that fire could burn us and our allies just as easily.
Exit questions: How are the Sunni al-Qaeda able to stir up so much trouble in Syria, which is a proxy of Shiite Iran? Has Iran lost that much clout in the Muslim world?
It's been a weird year up here in the great state of New Jersey. In one week in in August we experienced an earthquake and a hurricane. Around the rest of the country and world it's been just as strange.
Here's my choices for stories of the year:
10. Occupy Protests End as Epic Fail: Despite having massive adoration from a slobbering media, free use of public parks and money from rich (1%) patrons, the occupiers ending up being exactly what we thought a bunch of liberal entitlement babies with no jobs, sense or idea what they were protesting would be. They trashed every park they took over, made life miserable for people adjacent them and generally showed us what a society led by them would look like. If you are for rape, murder, public masturbation and seeing some dude take a dump in front of you, these are your type of folks. I guess if the Tea Party groups were ruder, whiter and less hygienic they could have been Time Magazine's Person of the Year.
9. Japanese Tsunami: This event more than anything showed what a different world we now live in. A major earthquake followed by a lethal wave that obliterated a nuclear facility and released more radiation than we'll ever know would have been enormous in, say, 1983. In today's high-speed world it was only on the front pages for a week.
8. Steve Jobs Passes: Steve Jobs was a great American entrepreneur who created things we didn't even know we needed but couldn't live without. You know he was a great capitalist when the MSM started running stories slamming him within days of his death. The same media that didn't have the balls to say anything mean about him while he was alive joined with fellow liberals kicking the carcass with anecdotes about his lack of charitable giving and other bullshit. I'm proud to say I'm typing this on a new Mac so thanks Steve and rest in peace.
7. Tim Tebow Gives Liberals Conniptions: Quarterback Tim Tebow is a devout Christian man and wears his religion on his sleeve. That's enough to make the left go apeshit. Tebow is a great athlete but not the prototypical QB a la Marino or Favre. Normally, people would love Tebow but he made an innocuous anti-abortion commercial (see below) and gets down on one knee and prays after games so he's the worst thing to happen to the NFL since steroids in the liberal mind. The same liberal minds that would not be acting this way if, say, Tebow were a Muslim.
6. The Arab Spring Disintegrates into Hell: I recall being in England back when the Tahrir Square uprisings were the only thing anyone was covering. The BBC covered it non-stop as if it was just great that a stable regime was being toppled by citizens who were good and just. We soon found that was not exactly the case. Instead, Egypt has become what could be the most militant Islamic nation in the world. The Muslim Brotherhood (started by Zawahiri) has control and a more militant party will soon join them in a coalition. Christians are being persecuted and any peace agreements with Israel will soon be nullified. Success!
5. Obama Gives the Finger to Iranian Protestors: The current title for most theocratic and oppressive nation (with Saudi Arabia a very close second) is held by Iran. Stonings, murder of homosexuals and other atrocities are commonplace. So what does the president who espoused hope and change and freedom do when Iranian's try to fight back against the ruling Ayatollah's? He dithers and votes present just like he does with every other big decision that may cost him some votes. All the uprising needed was a few words from Obama transmitted across the border from either Afghanistan or Iraq pledging some kind of support and the regime and theocratic house of cards would have tumbled.
4. The Continued Attack on Iran's Nuke Program:Stuxtnet is a virus on steroids. Apparently it was introduced into the Iranian nuke program in 2010 and wreaked absolute havoc. Add to that the recent and unexplained explosions and mishaps happening throughout the Persian nation and one has to wonder who's to blame. Could it be the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia or a joint effort? We probably won't know for a while but it definitely has had an effect on their ambitious plutonium enrichment project.
3. The Coordinated Media War on Herman Cain: Anyone who has followed politics knows the backlash that black men and women suffer when they come out as conservatives. Generally it comes from other African-Americans so they can have some cover because you know blacks can't be racist toward other blacks. All that was thrown out the window with Herman Cain. They went after the former corporate CEO harder than any of the white candidates--and it wasn't just fellow blacks. No, they made it personal and reported any shred of rumor they could find that portrayed him as unfaithful and a serial adulterer. They played on what they perceived is a conservative idea that all black men are horn dogs banging anything they can because any good liberals know us on the right have racist, pre-conceived notions of blacks. In other words, they used the race card in a way that was not easy to detect unless you were paying attention. Stories about John Edwards were ignored for months until the National Enquirer broke them because the proof supposedly wasn't there. The same decency was not extended to Mr. Cain.
2. Obama Abandons One War and Starts Another: Obama pledged a great many things on the campaign trail in 2008. One was to get out of Iraq and W left him a stable situation that required a little finesse to allow us to exit with dignity while still keeping the peace. Instead, Obama blew and if to compound the issue he started a NATO bombing campaign against Libya that resulted in the death of Qaddafi and yet another unstable Islamic nation. Iraq will disintegrate into a civil war with Iran and Saudi Arabia using proxy armies to fight one another while Libya will ally with the Egyptian islamist's and offer refuge to every terrorist group that needs it.
1. Chris Christie Says "Thanks But No Thanks": In the year where we have several strong GOP governors doing what conservatives have always wanted: fighting unions, cutting spending and taxes and generally walking the walk we end up with the lamest slate of candidates we've had in decades. I mean really? Does anyone get the warm fuzzies thinking about trudging out to vote for Newt Gingrich? The guy is the finest example of inside the beltway politics I could show you and the dude is just plain sleazy. What about Romney? The guy signed into law what was later the framework for Obamacare and he makes me pine for the electric personality of Bob Dole to boot. Bachman? Seems like a nice woman and a capable politician but she's just not cutting it. Santorum? He's the only one that hasn't had the lead and for crying out loud let's hope he doesn't. Ron Paul? I've been battling the Paulistinians for years and they kept telling me their guy was not really racist and definitely not an anti-Semite. Er, the evidence is mounting that they weren't exactly correct. So the man who could have destroyed Obama in debate after debate while joking the entire way opted out. Chris Christie could have been our next president but either felt he owed New Jersey something or just didn't want the scrutiny that a bid would entail. His wife and kids would be picked apart and we'd hear endless stories of his weight and health. Imagine: Christie/Rubio 2012. Oh well, one can always hold out hope for a brokered convention.
A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed numerous resolutions over the course of more than ten years that were not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.
Or:
A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed one resolution that was not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.
Answer? Nothing really except the former was a description of the Iraq War in 2003 and was labeled a "rush to war" by the media. It was also described continuously as a "unilateral" action which included 46-49 countries depending on the who counted.
The latter was a description of events that occurred just this week and is being described as a multinational operation that included less than 25% of those in the Iraq forces. These are described in the MSM as attacks by "allies". Here's the Philly Inquirer front page: Also, note that there's a propaganda effect from the MSM reporting and they actually are touting the speed in which we got this action together.
Just so you understand exactly where the liberal media stand, taking your case to the UN to oust a tyrant over the course of months and laying out each individual piece of evidence and showing numerous instances of flouting previous resolutions while building a coalition of nearly 50 nations is considered a "rush to war". Cobbling together four or five nations and rushing a resolution through the Security Council then bombing within 24-hours of its passage is a thoughtful process that met all the requirements for world opinion to be considered.
Allow me to quote the vaunted NY Times in October of 2002--four months before the coalition invaded Iraq:
Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ''is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.
We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.
Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.
The United States cannot defeat Al Qaeda without the help of dozens of other nations. The same principle applies to Iraq. President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.
Note that this was with a coalition of nearly 50 nations. BTW, Where is the plan from Senator Kerry to "win the peace" before starting military actions?
One imagines there will not be a 61% discount granted to anti-war groups to protest Obama's flagrant disregard of the world community as there was when President bush was in office.
It's all farce. I support our troops and wish them all God speed but the media has once again failed the standard they supposedly live up to.
I leave you with the NY Times blatant propaganda in support of the Obama administration. In Iraq, the US led the invasion to oust that particular brutal dictator and the word "allies" never appeared. Obama voted "present" on this issue and joined only because to do so would have made America seem even more irrelevant in the eyes of the world and we have this headline:
Tunisia was first, then Egypt now we have liberty and freedom trying to break out all over Asia.
Moammar Qaddafi resorted to using live bullets and missiles on his citizens. It's not looking good for the old, murderous bastard:
As the violence in the Arab dictatorship continued, a regional medical coordinator in the eastern city of Benghazi said bodies were piling up in hospitals.
"We must be talking at least 150 dead since the start of the demonstrations last week, with many more seriously injured," he said.
"Tanks and helicopter gunships full of foreign mercenaries are fighting gangs of demonstrators. At least one dead man had been hit by an anti-aircraft missile, while other bodies are riddled with heavy machine gun fire."
Fighting has also broken out in the cities of Al-Bayda, Ajdabiya, Zawiya, and Darnah, with eye-witnesses reporting Molotov cocktails, rifles and even antique Arabic sabres being used by demonstrators.
Protestors in Ajdabiya even claimed that it was now a "a Free City" after the HQ of Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committee was burned down on Friday, along with 14 other buildings.
Not sure what his military thinks of bringing in mercenaries but I'm thinking they can't be too thrilled about it.
Meanwhile in China, the Communist party has gone on the offensive as word starts spreading about protests there. I'm guessing if it gets bigger, the amount of people killed in Libya will pale in comparison to what the Chinese authorities will order exterminated.
I guess the real question that needs to be asked is quite simply this: Is Obama ready to take a true stand for liberty and freedom from tyranny? He didn't do so when Iran was on the verge and he didn't when Egypt was on the precipice so I'm guessing there's no way he has the balls to go against China--not with so many more social program's he wants to implement and the only source of money is them. Hell, he's alienated Britain so much that the royal couple didn't even invite him to their wedding.
Perhaps it's just easier for him to hinder the governor of Wisconsin--a man trying to save his state from the carnage left by Obamanomics--then speak out against dictatorships that oppress their populations. in other words, Obama's voting "present" again.
Someone who sells themselves to anyone for the right price is generally considered a whore. I give you Beyonce:
On Sunday, Mediaite reported that singer Beyoncé Knowles had given a private New Year’s Eve performance for an exclusive crowd in St. Barth — and made the case that she had performed and been paid by relatives of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi (variously known as Khadafy, Qaddafi, Quadhafi and more). Atlanta-based blogger Necole Bitchie reported a $2 million fee; the UK Mirror reported a “six-figure sum” and yesterday Media Takeout made the same claim, repeating the $2 million number and confirming the Gaddafi-hosted party from a guest who was there (hip-hop impresario Russell Simmons also placed Beyoncé at a “Khadafy party.” Today Page Six confirms our original report, with one new piece of information: the party was thrown by Moutassim Gaddafi, known as Hannibal, son of the Libyan dictator who less than a week before made headlines for allegedly attacking his wife in a London hotel.
Page Six notes — as we did! — that Beyoncé’s sang five songs for a crowd that included her husband Jay-Z, Lindsay Lohan and Usher (who also did the New Year’s countdown); Jon Bon Jovi, Simmons, supermodels Miranda Kerr and Victoria Slivstedt and BET founder Bob Johnson. Page Six could not confirm the rumored $2 million sum cited elsewher (sic), but did note (again as we did) Mariah Carey’s reported $1-million payday for the same gig last year.
These scumbags attended a party thrown by a guy whose family was directly responsible for the deaths of Americans (yes revisionist's, it was definitely state-sponsored terrorism).
I wonder if Beyonce, Jay-Z, Bon Blowme, Usher or any of the other Hollywood leaches ever considered giving a concert for the families of all those who died over Lockerbie, Scotland. That was sarcasm as such a concert wouldn't pay real well and the party wouldn't be the party to be seen at so why would these douchebags participate.
Posts
