March 22, 2011

"7 Questions For Liberals About Obama's Libyan War."

Questions based on the overarching question: Did they really mean the criticisms they had against Bush or not?

139 comments:

Surfed said...

Why isn't Cindy "The Ditch" Sheehan on television everynight?

former law student said...

I can't remember back to 1991. Did liberals criticize George HW Bush's No-Fly Zone part of Operation Provide Comfort?

Rich B said...

Hey, but Obama is just ossum!

MadisonMan said...

What are the 7 Questions for Conservatives?

Lincolntf said...

It was evident from the get go that the "anti-war" crowd was just playacting. They have no real principles, no understanding of military realities or world affairs and no goals beyond self-enrichment and the accumulation of political power. If any one of those protesters gave a shit about people in the Third World, they'd be protesting Third World leaders. Instead they choose the easiest, safest route and attack their fellow Americans. Worthless bits of human debris, every one of them.

Trooper York said...

Refer to Fen's law if you want the answer.

It is the best explaination of liberal thought I have ever heard.

madawaskan said...

They haven't got they're talking points yet-

Liberals they can't HANDLE the questions!

The Crack Emcee said...

Of course they didn't mean it. We heard Obama, during the election, slam Hillary for hypocritically opposing him, when she voted for Iraq, and then trying to act like she didn't. My question is simple:

If he knew she was a hypocrite, why'd he hire her as Secretary of State?

Christopher said...

There is a reason why the left shrieked to high heaven during the Iraq conflict but had their heads quietly up their asses during the Syphilitic Hillbilly's carpet bombing of the Balkans and now during Little Black Jesus' sneering presumption that he can commit American troops whenever he wishes.

As Trooper says, it's Fen's Law - the left really doesn't believe in the things it lectures us about.

That and they're also - nearly to a man - treasonous, amoral assholes who will snatch up any weapon to hand to betray the nation when a Republican is president. But Fen says it simply and with more panache.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

It is all one war, and the Bush solution seems to be working out finally.

Fred4Pres said...

What are we doing there? Because I am no longer sure.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ken said...

If Capitalism rots and Health care is so great in socialist/commie countries, why then don't the Hollywood elite and fat pig Mikey Moore move there and/or donate their millions to the underclass? In Moore's case his carcass could provide sustenance for a small village in the Sudan.
From what my liberal neighbors state, Obama's major problem is due to how badly Bush messed up everything and how the rich and corporations are abusing the poor and middle class.
I guess one has to be supportive of an assclown who is now down in Brazil offering loans so that country can develop THEIR energy resources? You have to love the liberal mantra of NIMBY. Keep getting spam from care2 site saying how we must unite against any development of energy here other than free electic and wind power, etc.
But then at least when Dems are in power the poor are no longer starving and homeless on the streets of our major cities. That was only under W because that's all I ever heard about was conservatives lack of compassion and obsession with greed and war.

AllenS said...

Fred4Pres said...
What are we doing there?

Where? We seem to be everywhere.

Mary Beth said...

When Meade removed that t-shirt from the statue one commenter asked if he had ever served. That's who I want to answer these questions.

Pastafarian said...

The third question is a good one: Isn't his a war for oil?

The only justification I've seen from President Wonderful's supporters is that this action is in our own self-interest because an unstable Libya will drive up the price of oil and wreck our economy. Therefore, it affects our own national security.

That sure sounds like blood for oil to me.

Fred4Pres said...

in which I explain what no one else seems to be able to explain: Obama’s Libya policy It’s simple, really: enrage leftists (protecting their anti-war cred); tack toward transnationalism by suggesting that the UN is leading here and that this is how it should be, with the military to be used for humanitarian intervention rather than out of something so crass as sovereign interests; all the while, try to win back independents by showing you are willing to break from your own base (which we know to be the Democrat party, but who the media will portray in the persons of Nader and Kucinich, eg.) and take military action when you feel it necessary.

It was a half-thought out campaign maneuver on the one hand, and a commitment to transnational progressivism on the other.

That’s all there is to it.

Posted by Jeff G


That sums it up well.

Hagar said...

However haltingly and imperfectly, it'd working out.

madawaskan said...

Their defense is about as good as The New York Giant's circa 1991.

Suckage!

Simon said...

The Crack Emcee said...
"If he knew she was a hypocrite, why'd he hire her as Secretary of State?"

One must suspect that the answer is simple: Because that was the deal. He avoided a messy floor fight at the convention; she got SoS.

Trooper York said...

Seven questions for conservatives

We know Obama is a Muslim but does he like bean pies?
Is Michelle a Klingon or a Romulan?
Does Mitt Romney have more wives than Newt Gringrich?
What’s worse the Wisconsin Teachers Union or the NFL Players union?
Do you use the New York Times to pick up dog shit or just for the birdcage?
Is Ann Coulter a dude?
How much do you want to bang Sarah Palin?

Browndog said...

What I find most interesting is that I see many liberals (MSM, Congress, and pundits) actually asking serious questions.

Actually searching for actual answers to legitimate questions instead of the usual full measure of demagoguery

Apparently, Obama reminded them from afar today. Reminded them of what's really important

via Fox Nation:

In Chile, Obama puts forth his doctrine, defending the Libya mission by claiming that humanitarian interventionism is the “core principle that has to be upheld.”

Crucially, Obama also took a tacit shot at Bush, comparing his own multilateral approach favorably to the former president’s:

“In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

Lincolntf said...

“In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”


What a passive-aggressive little bitch he is.

Carol_Herman said...

It's still catnip. It's Obama who got no traction in military matters, who has stepped up to the plate.

It will be a short war. It has 3 parts. You've seen 2. Initial strikes to take out the Libyan's ability to fly. Then, to attack Daffy Ghaddafi's bunkers in Tripoli. (One of his son's is dead.)

Alas, Ghaddafi invited in AP, Reuter's, and CNN. And, they were human shields, as they had a military strike, already airborne, called back, because the news that journalists got hit would "look bad." The most high up officials had to do the "call back."

The next round will be to go after the supply routes. This should put Ghaddafi's thugs at a standstill.

Heck, Qatar has already supplied airplanes. And, if I had to guess, there will be a lot of pushing and shoving, ahead, in attempts to bring to Libyans the freedom FROM the lunatic Ghaddafi.

Libya is very sparsely populated! (Probably why Ghaddafi was able to control the streets. And, not the other way round.)

Libyans don't belong to the Muslem Brotherhood, either. Ghaddafi pushed the mosques into the background.

Libya was built on a "cult of personality." (Think Stalin.) When they're dead they are gone forever.

For Obama, Tripoli will be easier to control than any place else in the Mideast! And, it is ripe for an overhaul, given all the things Ghaddafi denied his people! There's no middle class! No tourism! No one able to open a retail business. No Starbucks. No place where it was safe to congregate.

CATNIP.

To screw this up? Only the Devine can help. But Obama may not capitalize on a victory, either. Most Americans are now so fed up with arabs, in general, it doesn't matter where they come from!

As Rumsfeld said: You have something lousy in place. But when you change things, you get WORSE.

Obama lost a large faction of Independents. Among them? Not one anti-war spitter. But all the concerns? Thank Bush. Irak and Afghanistan has eroded trust like nobody's business.

And, in the "worst case" scenario categories, IF mistakes by republicans gets Obama re-elected ... he'll be in there, again and again. Just like FDR.

Yes, it matters! It matters who gets nominated. And, it matters when someone in charge recognizes CATNIP just came out to play.

The Drill SGT said...

On a serious note: After the last time we bombed Libya, the Colonel blew up Pan Am 103. Just sayin that now that we started this, it would be a shame if Kaddafi survies the week still in power.

PS: while we're at it, I'd like to see at least 2 of our GPS guided bombs lose signal over Tripoli and hit the house where the Pan Am 103 guy lives. After all, it would be a merciful thing, him dying of painful cancer and all...

As for the chances of 2 JDAMs having a control failure in a single mission? Well stranger things have happened before. There once was a guy with terminal cancer. Real bad stuff, didn't have 90 days to live, yet he's alive more than 600 days later. stranger things have happened. Just sayin...

Simon said...

The thing to keep in mind is that Obama knows he can ignore the left because they have nowhere else to go. They can carp and whine and stomp their feet about this, but in the end, they will give generously to his campaign and back him to the hilt at the ballot box; he knows it, they know it, and we know it. What else are they going to do, let Sarah Palin walk into the White House? Please. He has them over a barrel, and that frees him to ignore them, pursuing votes from the center which is more likely to be impressed by what he's doing. Liberals don't have to answer questions about this war because they're irrelevant to it. It's not about them. I would be more interested in framing seven questions for people who matter: legitimate swing voters who backed Obama in 2008.

Simon said...

Carol_Herman said...
"[A]ttack Daffy Ghaddafi's bunkers in Tripoli. (One of his son's is dead.)"

The bunker was alive? That's wild. Some kind of Vorlon tech?

madawaskan said...

The refs-the media are on their side and they still can't handle it.

No wonder President Obama isn't out there trying to justify and build consensus for what he has asked the US military to undertake.

The media gives their team a pass and the history books will just re-write it.

What's the use?

President Obama knows Democrats have a pathological relationship with the US military.

Amartel said...

“In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

And a liar:

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya

Alex said...

That liberals think the military is a sort of "Meals on Wheels" is part of their insanity. Thanks Rush! Always brilliant, dittos.

madawaskan said...

In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support...

So at least he didn't say this in Brazil...

China, Russia and Germany are in now-who knew?

Alex said...

What are the 7 Questions for Conservatives?

Conservatives aren't the hypocrites here. But would you be happy if there were those 7 questions at the same time? All in fairness right?

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, Simon. I love your stuff. And, I do admit I talk funny. So, let me repeat this one. Kamis Ghaddafi, the son of Daffy Duck ... (I can't help myself) ... age 27. Leader of the Secret Police. Was burned to death when a Libyan pilot, on a suicide mission, drove his plane into the baracks that housed the Secret Police Headquarters.

It's also true that an air attack was called off, because Ghaddafi called in 3 news outlets. The planes were airborne. The journalists were called "civilians." Not journalists. And, not journalists who went behind the lines.

The mission is still brief enough. We've seen two of it's tasks. With the 3rd one being an air attack on Ghaddafi's supply lines.

As Napoleon said: "An army advances on its belly." Good chance that so far Ghaddafi's ability to terrorize his nation has been clipped.

Since it took a very high up official to call off an air strike involving lots of planes, I can only guess that "the powers that be," have no intention of pissing off the media.

Isn't that a shame?

James said...

In Chile, Obama puts forth his doctrine, defending the Libya mission by claiming that humanitarian interventionism is the “core principle that has to be upheld.”


That's the Samantha Power doctrine of "humanitarian interventionism." If it were even remotely true, why aren't we in Darfur, for example?

edutcher said...

Schaudenfeude, it not just for breakfast anymore.

Every one of the things the Lefties threw at us from '03 (really from '66) on has come back to bite them on this one. They have shown themselves to be the hypocrites they are and always were.

Which is one of the big problems in the Democrat Party - like the Soviet Communists in the 80s and 90s, they no longer believe in what they're doing or helping the people they say they're protecting, it's just to hang onto power.

When you want some naked women to spell out PEACE (Troop, this is your opening) on an SF hillside and the only ones who volunteer are all over 55 and want to do it because it feels just like Hashbury in '67, you know it's time to close up shop.

MayBee said...

In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support,

I suppose it's true enough, but "unilaterally" isn't true of either GHWB or GWB.
Unless we redefine "unilaterally".
The no "full international support" is true of every time we've acted militarily, including this time.

So I'm not sure what point he thinks he's making.

Henry said...

Liberals voted for Obama despite his promotion of more war in Afghanistan.

By 2008, after the surge, opposing the Iraq war wasn't a policy or war-and-peace issue. It was a totem. Attica! Attica! Attica!

Now, war in Afghanistan goes nowhere as Obama blunders in a new direction. The stakes are small, but there's not much upside either. It's like another Balkan war.

Win or draw, after Libya we'll still be in Afghanistan.

Fred4Pres said...

1) Isn't this a rush to war?

Yes Rush is a war monger.

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?

No, Hillary told him to do it. He can't be outstaged by Hillary.

3) Is this a war for oil?

No silly, we can get plenty of George Soros oil in Brazil.

4) Where are the massive protests?

In Wisconsin where they belong.

5) Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?

Yes, but Hillary would have none of that. See #2.

6) Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?

If only we could bomb the Tea Partiers. Some day, some day.

7) Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk?

Absolutely not. He served as a community organizer.

Carol_Herman said...

"Back in 1991" ... News flash about Gulf War 1. When, at the time the elder Bush was campaigning for re-election ... he got to learn that Ross Perot came out of nowhere to get his name on the ballot in 50 states. And, Clinton won the plurality.

At least, unlike Taft's re-election, when Teddy Roosevelt opposed him. Anf, Taft came in 3rd. The Bull Moose Party eviscerated the republicans ... Woodrow Wilson WON the presidency.

Theodore Roosevelt was the first PROGRESSIVE! He got into the presidency because he was made vice-president in McKinley's second run. McKinley was shot one month into his second term.

Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, all veeps, stepping into the shoes of a downed president. Not the best selection process in the world.

Alas, the 20th Century, ended up belonging to the PROGRESSIVES, also known, now, as democrats.

Ya gotta win to have political muscle in this country.

madawaskan said...

Great I just found this:

******

Discord erupted Monday in Europe after Turkey blocked NATO from participating. Diplomats said Turkey, a NATO member that sees itself as a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world, was angered by its exclusion from an emergency summit Saturday in Paris organized by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at which the 22 participants agreed to launch armed action against Qaddafi's military.

*******

foxnews.com

Hoosier Daddy said...

I can't remember back to 1991. Did liberals criticize George HW Bush's No-Fly Zone part of Operation Provide Comfort?

Well I distinctly recall the birth of the slogan NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! when he was forming the Grand Coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The No-Fly Zone was simply an extension from that war.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@edutcher

Someone hose off edutcher, he's ON FIRE!!! Outstanding.

No comment required. Carry on.

rocketeer67 said...

“In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

Well, when would that be? Because if he's talking about Iraq, I'd point out that Bush's coalition was twice as big, wasn't put
together by the French president only to be joined by the US in a last-minute scramble, and didn't fall completely apart after three days.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I wonder if anyone has considered what the payoff to Russia and China were for their UNSC abstentions? It certainly begs the question how a UNSC resolution was passed so fast on Libya but a decade on and a couple hundred thousand dead Darfurians later and the French or Brits can’t be bothered to lead the way or Russia or China bribed into abstaining.

kent said...

1) Isn't this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a "rush to war." Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

"... ummmmmmmm... errrrrrr... ahhhhhhhh... EVERYBODY SAMBAAAAAA -- !!!"

/leftard

Thorley Winston said...

If he knew she was a hypocrite, why'd he hire her as Secretary of State?


Because he knew he didn’t mean the things he said about Bush’s foreign policy and that he’d be pilloried by his base in 2012 for not immediately closing Gitmo, leaving Iraq, etc. By picking Clinton as his Secretary of State, he’s effectively implicated her in every foreign policy (in)decision and (in)action he does (not) make which makes it harder for her to challenge him for the nomination next year.

Thorley Winston said...

Well I distinctly recall the birth of the slogan NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! when he was forming the Grand Coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The No-Fly Zone was simply an extension from that war.

I remember back when people were protesting the deaths supposedly caused by the sanctions in Iraq.

Paulio said...

Ummm....there's actually tons of liberal criticism of this. For Pete's sake, The Daily Show is already mocking him. Maybe read something other than Althouse's cherry-picked quotes for your news...

madawaskan said...

Hoosier

Did you accidently "italicize" your last comment?

MadisonMan said...

NFL Players union

Didn't that Union -- the one that represents the interests of the players on the World Champion Green Bay Packers dissolve? I thought I heard that over the weekend.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Did you accidently "italicize" your last comment?

I sure did. Meant to quote a comment from farther up the thread. Guess I blocked the wrong part!

MayBee said...

I remember back when people were protesting the deaths supposedly caused by the sanctions in Iraq.


I remember that, too.
I also remember when the UN and most other nations stopped backing the US/UK Kurdish "no fly zone" in the late Clinton/early Bush years.

kent said...

I remember back when people were protesting the deaths supposedly caused by the sanctions in Iraq.

Hell, I can remember alllllll the way back to when the two chiefest leftard arguments versus the war in Iraq were:

1.) "We have no right to attack any nation which hasn't openly and unambiguously attacked us first!"; and --

2.) "We shouldn't be bombing and killing TEH THIRD WORLD BROWN PEOPLES!!!11!!"

#1 was, evidently, purest, unreconstituted horseshit, beginning to end; and #2 has, demonstrably, been suspened on the grounds that Libyans are, somehow -- it's all done with mirrors, apparently -- not as legitimately "brown" as Iraqis, or something.

"Preident Brackets for teh WINZ!!! WOOT!!!"

Hoosier Daddy said...

The Daily Show is already mocking him.

Wake me when MSNBC or the NYT takes him to task.

Or the Nobel Committee demands a refund.

The Crack Emcee said...

Troop,

Is Michelle a Klingon or a Romulan?

Dude. She's the world's most fashionable Klingon.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We shouldn't be bombing and killing TEH THIRD WORLD BROWN PEOPLES!!!11!!

This canard is getting tiresome too. I've seen browner people in Florence and the south of France than in Libya.

kent said...

When you want some naked women to spell out PEACE (Troop, this is your opening) on an SF hillside and the only ones who volunteer are all over 55 and want to do it because it feels just like Hashbury in '67, you know it's time to close up shop.

God damn you for forcing me to imagine Helen Thomas nekkid, you bastard.

kent said...

I've seen browner people in Florence and the south of France than in Libya.

Likewise, Iraq. Which was (part of) the point, actually. ;)

madawaskan said...

Hoosier

Well it's damn good observation.

kent said...

"Top 10 Reasons Why Obama Really Declared War On Libya"

DADvocate said...

the left really doesn't believe in the things it lectures us about.

What do they believe in other than wanting power and rich people are bad? They specialize in rationalizing any action they take with some sort of circular argument.

DADvocate said...

I've seen browner people in Florence ...

Would that be Florence (Y'all), KY, Florence, SC or Florence, AL? Plenty of brown people in all of them.

traditionalguy said...

The meme that Obama is a silly rabbit who has no goals is never true. Facts are that the Socialist EU's benefit programs are tottering and desperately need to put a stop the immigration flood into Italy and France from North Africa, and they will have to do something military if the USA will not. The inference is that the EU promised Obama something in exchange for using the American Military. It may turn out as banal as simple starting a quagmire war in Libya that shuts down its oil fields so that Soros's investment into Brazil's new oil fields goes way up in value. Follow the money.

kent said...

Obama, 2009: "[T]he danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these [democratic] values on another country [...]"

Obama, 2011: "The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Muammar Gadhafi and 'installing a democratic system' [...] according to a conversation between President Obama and Turkey’s prime minister."

Leftard Trolls on Althouse Board:

[::blink::]

[::blink::]

[::blink::]

"...ummmmmmm... SQUIRREL!!!11!"

PatCA said...

I also would like to know why the MSM as ignored the scandal of the rogue Army guys who killed Afghanis. Abu Ghraib was, to them, the story of the century. Why not this one?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier

Well it's damn good observation


Thanks. When I heard that the resolution passed in the UNSC and that China and Russia abstained my first reaction was: Wonder what the payoff is.

I can't help but be cynical about the potential 'humanitarian crisis' when the 'international community' sat on its hands over Rwanda, Congo and Darfur.

Matt said...

Hey at least Dennis Kucinich has been consistent with his view of these declarations of war despite whether it is Bush or Obama.

This has turned out to be a flip flop for most partisans out there. The Liberals are mostly shrugging it off and the Conservatives are upset that Obama would do such a thing. It's all about who is in power that drives partisan opinions. Silly and completely predictable.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Trooper

"Refer to Fen's law if you want the answer."

OK, I'll bite - provide a citation of Fen's law, please...

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Matt

"Hey at least Dennis Kucinich has been consistent with his view of these declarations of war despite whether it is Bush or Obama."

Though I agree with Mr. Kucinich this time, I think the 'bigger picture' message is that Mr. Kucinich's experiment must be over - that is, the aliens returned to earth for his 2nd abduction and returned part of his brain.

wv - dines

Browndog said...

Oil markets had stabilized, and gas prices were inching downward...

until...

Obama slammed $100 Million of U.S. ordnance into a member of OPEC.

Just an observation...

vbspurs said...

I resent that this Townhall piece was so poorly, and cavalierly written. Its juvenile "blogging" tone also irritates me, since the questions that need to be asked of Liberals about the Libyan War are actually quite important, and should be treated with seriousness, not levity.

The 7 Questions are:

1- Isn't this a rush to war?
2- Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?
3- Is this a war for oil?
4- Where are the massive protests?
5- Shouldn't we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?
6- Aren't we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?
7- Isn't Barack Obama a chickenhawk?

Of these, I think numbers 1/3/6 are the most important, and should be asked of every Liberal if they support this intervention.

Number 7 is interesting, because it allows one to debunk one of the Left's most cherished insults about Bush finding it so easy to start a war, since he has daughters, not sons, who will not be sent to fight in a war. Just like Mr Obama.

Cheers,
Victoria

Browndog said...

U.N. Resolution 1973 calls for protecting "civilians" by any means necessary.

If anyone here can define what a "civilian" is, please contact the NSA.

During a 1 hour conference call with reporters yesterday, reporters asked repeatedly...came up empty.

Matt said...

vbspurs

Yeah, but it is just as important to ask why so many conservatives are against this war action in Libya but were for the war action in Iraq. Get it?
It's just a reversal based on partisanship.

It is important to note that our government is ALWAYS going to war. It does not matter who is in charge. And it does not matter what we think or if we are liberals or conservatives. We are just pawns really. But we don't think we are. Funny that.

Carol_Herman said...

After the first round of air strikes against Tripoli, Ghaddafi called in CNN, Reuters, and the AP. They were there "filming" ... when another sortee of planes were going to come in for "stage 2." Those planes got called back!

This tells me that the media are playing a very big role in how this story will be photographed.

Who in their right mind would have called the planes back?

And, yes. CATNIP means Obama has to abandon his left ... and head out to find the Independents ... who have fallen off voting for him, again.

Now, I'm just waiting for the pushing and shoving to begin in the "new Libya." Where I also expect Obama's gonna get tough. And, abandon the road of influence the saud's usually have in our Mideast policy.

Because Libya has potential! Ghaddafi is a cult onto himself. And, just like when Stalin died. Insiders didn't morn him at all.

Did you know Stalin wanted to be pickled just like Lenin, and "displayed?"

kent said...

Obama Mission du Jour in Libya: “Installing a democratic system”

Barack Obama: Chris Matthews' (and Matt's) Favorite Neocon.

Maguro said...

Yeah, but it is just as important to ask why so many conservatives are against this war action in Libya but were for the war action in Iraq. Get it? It's just a reversal based on partisanship.

There was, at least, a clearly defined goal in Iraq - We were going to go in, get rid the government and install a better one in its place.

What exactly is our goal in Libya?

Cedarford said...

The Drill SGT said...
On a serious note: After the last time we bombed Libya, the Colonel blew up Pan Am 103. Just sayin that now that we started this, it would be a shame if Kaddafi survies the week still in power.

PS: while we're at it, I'd like to see at least 2 of our GPS guided bombs lose signal over Tripoli and hit the house where the Pan Am 103 guy lives
=======================
Sorry, we cut a deal. No different than John McCain and George Bushs idealized Great General Petraeus proffering sugared dainties into the mouths of "hero Sunni insurgents of Tal Afar" and handing them stacks of 100 dollar bills knowing they all ordered US soldiers killed - but were turned to killing "Evidoers" once Great General Petraeus handed enough money over and promised them all Amnesty.

Libya gave up the AQ Khan nuclear bomb network and as an added bonus he gave us blueprints the Chinese scum had given Pakistan to build their bomb. Qadaffi also renounced terror, renounced and is in process of destroying al his chem and bioweapons.
He also had to pay 2 billion to the relatives of the soldiers he killed in Berlin, to Flight 103 and the Lockerbie killed and injured.
For that, we let his agent go - knowing that the British courts were already having a field day on disclosure that the US secretly paid millions to witnesses in the Lockerbie case to testify. And said Qadaffi was secure and we would not try and take him out as long as he delivered on renouncing terror and completed dismantling his WMD program.



In short, a far better deal than Bush, McCain, and their hero Petraeus brokered with the Heroes of Tal Afar.

Yes, we have the "justice in court and criminal charges are sacrosanct above any deal to uncover a nuke bomb network, eliminate WMD, renounce terrorism" sort of people. But IMO, they are vindictive idiots.

And Petraeus was right to sit down with the butchers of Tal Afar and turn them with the right bribes.
And if the leaders of the Taliban said they would not hand over Al Qaedabut make them available for questioning until the whole network was revealed and name all the people in Karzai's government working for them as well as Pakistan's ISI...in return for us ending our war..we should take that deal as well. Despite the moaning of "victims advocates" that ONLY cases in Mighty Courts matter, and the war should continue indefinitely.

peter hoh said...

I don't read any Kos-style lefties. The liberals I read have been very critical of Obama's decision to go to war with Libya.

MadisonMan, here is a questions for conservatives: Why weren't you screaming about deficit spending when the Republicans ran Congress?

Simon said...

Maguro said...
"What exactly is our goal in Libya?"

I can't speak for the administration, given that it has sent mixed messages, but fundamentally, the answer is "Qaddafi leaves power." I don't understand why critics seem to think this is a stumper of a question. Last Friday, NPR pp. Robert Siegel asked Anne-Marie Slaughter the same basic question ("can you describe what would be a successful outcome") in the same "obviously there's no good answer to this" tone we hear constantly, and her answer was simple and direct: "Qaddafi leaves power." It's not rocket science.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yeah, but it is just as important to ask why so many conservatives are against this war action in Libya

Well for starters, (1) we have no idea whatsoever who is going to be running Libya if/when Col. G ends up taking a dirt nap.

Second, outside of direct supply and continued air support, the rebels have a snowball's chance in the Libyan desert in actually taking Tripoli. Assuming an ice age that allows the snowball to survive, see point (1) again.

Then there is the third point, being that we have realized the errors of hoping for 'democracy' in Iraq and Afghanistan and simply assume a third time is NOT a charm and that goes back to point number (1) yet again.

madawaskan said...

Hoosier

Correct. If you want even more cynical-they confiscated 30 billion just in Kadafi's assets alone (if I have that right)...so...

******

I forgot to highlight this from the previous article I linked about Turkey blocking NATO:

On the other end,

Italy warned Monday that it would review the use of its bases by coalition forces if NATO does not take over.

The country lies just across the Mediterranean from Libya and is allowing the use of seven of its military bases.

madawaskan said...

Matt

Democrats hold the Executive.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief. He's a Democrat.

Democrats are the majority in the Senate.

The Senate has primacy in relation to the House.

(-which the Republicans have only had the majority of since approximately January 20th- which is a little over 2 months.)

*********

peter hoh.

Try to be relevant I think your concern trolling has been eclipsed in Obama's first year by a 800 BILLION dollar stimulus that given the current global economic crisis perhaps should have been held for now instead of all pissed away back then.

And for what?

A negligible drop in unemployment- maybe *if* you are measuring it with a microscope.

Maguro said...

"Qaddafi leaves power." It's not rocket science.

OK. But what happens if the bombing campaign isn't enough to make him leave power? Do we go all in, invade Libya to remove him or do we just do an Emily Litella and say "Never mind", pick up our toys and go home?

Do you think Obama and the women who nagged him into war have thought all that through?

cokaygne said...

Don't tread 2012, Fen's law is named after a service dog named Fen who was brutally attacked by another dog. Fen's injuries were such that he could no longer perform his duties as a service dog. Fen's law makes it a misdemeanor for any "person" to attack and disable a service dog. In 2005, NH was at a rare moment in its history because Democrats controlled the governor's office and both houses of the legislature.

cokaygne said...

Don't tread 2012, Fen's law is named after a service dog named Fen who was brutally attacked by another dog. Fen's injuries were such that he could no longer perform his duties as a service dog. Fen's law makes it a misdemeanor for any "person" to attack and disable a service dog. In 2005, NH was at a rare moment in its history because Democrats controlled the governor's office and both houses of the legislature.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Italy warned Monday that it would review the use of its bases by coalition forces if NATO does not take over.

Well I think if NATO takes over then a review of the NATO charter is in order because last time I checked, NATO was to be activated when a NATO member was attacked and last time I looked, the Libyan rebels weren’t a signatory to the alliance. Turkey and Germany are NATO members are adamantly refuse to take part in the operation. It seems to me that NATO has outlived its usefulness, particularly when one member is pulling 90% of the weight in these operations.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why weren't you screaming about deficit spending when the Republicans ran Congress?

Believe me my congressman (a GOP) heard plenty of my 'screaming' in letter and email form for quite a few years when Bush was in office. His staff doesn't even bother to send me the boilerplate 'thank you for your interest' response letters. And I'm right of Attila.

madawaskan said...

Oh wait the 112th Congress was sworn in January 6th so hellfire that's almost 3 months-

Matt said:...but it is just as important to ask why so many conservatives are against this war action in Libya.

How are you getting 'it is just as important"?

How about more importantly you get your Democratic President to justify his actions and back the military who he is asking to do this and perhaps risk their lives?

How about asking your President to do his job and consolidate support for his demands of the US military?

former law student said...

I can't remember back to 1991. Did liberals criticize George HW Bush's No-Fly Zone part of Operation Provide Comfort?

Well I distinctly recall the birth of the slogan NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!! when he was forming the Grand Coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait. The No-Fly Zone was simply an extension from that war.


The NBFO people were irrational. Iraq invaded Kuwait and we helped drive them back. Kuwaiti oil went mostly to Japan anyways.

Anyhow, the difference between what GW Bush did and what Obama's doing is apples and oranges. GHW Bush established a No-Fly Zone in Iraq, and Clinton maintained it. It took Junior to organize a land invasion and occupation. If President Malia or President Sasha decide to invade Libya thirty years hence I don't see how Barack would be responsible.

madawaskan said...

Ya I was thinking that the whole time I was reading the article.

I don't know NATO regulations -hell I thought just Germany was enough to block it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The NBFO people were irrational.
Iraq invaded Kuwait and we helped drive them back. Kuwaiti oil went mostly to Japan anyways.


Perhaps Japan should have led the banzai charge into Iraq then.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't know NATO regulations -hell I thought just Germany was enough to block it.

I don't think any one member can block anything, rather, choose not to participate. In Kosovo, all of NATO except Greece participated in the air campaign. Probably because they had an affinity for Mr. Milosovec's regime.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Anyhow, the difference between what GW Bush did and what Obama's doing is apples and oranges.

Agreed. GW Bush had the goal of driving Saddam out of Kuwait to secure cheap oil. Obama is bombing Libya because the French told him to.

kent said...

Obama is bombing Libya because the French told him to.

At least we can all rest comfortably in the absolute certainty that he bowed low and prettily, upon receiving said marching orders.

Carol_Herman said...

Dear Maguro

The goal in Libya is to scare the living daylights out of Daffy Duck; and to increase his insanity.

This is a reachable goal without using tanks.

Are we there, yet? Probably closer than you think.

Irak is still a mess. We were being told what to do by the saudi's. Who lusted for the oil fields in Basra. And, instead, the sunnis in Irak got their asses kicked. And, the arabs use and are using IED's against our troops.

We put in Bremer. We thought Chalabi would end up in control. And, instead the people elected Maliki. Who went to Iran. And, he brought in the "big guns" ... While the Iraqis like to hit Americans with shoes. And, stick pencils in our eyeballs.

Libya's a different story.

There is NO "anti-war" sentiments against out troops. Here, we have our air force. And, our navy. You bet, most Americans would applaud watching Daffy Duck and his "selected" Libyans all go to hell!

What happens if Libyans are just free to move around, without fears of the secret police carting any one of them away at night?

What if you could kick start places where people could congregate for coffee, without fearing the secret police?

What if Obama shows he's not beholden to the saud's,and he doesn't let them into Libya?

kent said...

A thread plainly and specifically titled "7 Questions for Liberals"... and scarcely any of the established leftards-in-residence are even capable of sacking up just long enough to honestly answer said seven queries? Really -- ?!?

Pfffftt. Pussies.

former law student said...

based on the overarching question: Did they really mean the criticisms they had against Bush or not?

kent, if I prepared seven questions that assumed that Walker's anti-union actions were identical with Qadaffi's suppression of Libyan rebels, would you take the trouble to respond to them?

Revenant said...

Perhaps Japan should have led the banzai charge into Iraq then.

After WW2 we "encouraged" them to adopt a constitution that forbade those sorts of overseas military shenanigans.

kent said...

kent, if I prepared seven questions that assumed that Walker's anti-union actions were identical with Qadaffi's suppression of Libyan rebels, would you take the trouble to respond to them?

If you genuinely believe the Team Blue bombs raining upon and killing brown people are materially different from Team Red bombs doing same, either in justification or effect: the only intellectually defensible means of advancing that argument is responding honestly and forthrightly to the seven queries at hand and actually making said case (if possible).

You make no points, gain no rhetorical ground, by simply clamping your hands over your ears, squeezing your eyes shut, chanting "LALALALALALAAAAAA" in a loud voice and pretending the questions haven't even been raised in the first place.

I understand you -- and here, I refer to the umbrella "you" of dedicated leftist trolls, hereabouts -- cannot possibly respond to all seven queries, without a gargantuan amount of shucking and jiving and painfully obvious backpedaling from previously (and shrilly) held positions. Try thinking of it as an opportunity, rather than brute misfortune.

Hoosier Daddy said...

After WW2 we "encouraged" them to adopt a constitution that forbade those sorts of overseas military shenanigans.

Too bad we can't adopt a similar amendment.

jr565 said...

Simon wrote:
I can't speak for the administration, given that it has sent mixed messages, but fundamentally, the answer is "Qaddafi leaves power." I don't understand why critics seem to think this is a stumper of a question. Last Friday, NPR pp. Robert Siegel asked Anne-Marie Slaughter the same basic question ("can you describe what would be a successful outcome") in the same "obviously there's no good answer to this" tone we hear constantly, and her answer was simple and direct: "Qaddafi leaves power." It's not rocket science.

AND THEN???????
That's it? That's all you got? What happens after that? That's your and libs idea of smart diplomacy?
How many bombs shoudl be dropped? Do feet touch the ground? what if the rebels are even worse than Qadaffi? What if the rebeles are in league with Al Qaeda? What then? Give me a break here. I can't believe you're being snotty with that complete bullshit nonanswer of a policy.

jr565 said...

It seems taht for some liberals the distinction is that this is a UN action and not a unilateral action. Becasue no one vetoed the action all is justified.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It seems taht for some liberals the distinction is that this is a UN action and not a unilateral action.

For liberals a multi-national coalition is the US doing 95% of the fighting under UN and/or French approval. That's probably why they're so enamored with union workers where you see 5 guys standing around watching one guy wielding a shovel.

Simon said...

jr565, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that no one will give you specific goals for the mission and then, when you are given them, complain that the goals are too specific. Qadaffi leaves or is removed from power; and then nothing. Then the mission is done. That's now a limited military operation works: the goal is achieved, the mission is done.

kent said...

Qadaffi leaves or is removed from power [...] Then the mission is done.

LEFTARDS: "What? What? We've Always Been Steadfastly Supportive Of 'Regime Change!' We Were Too, Dammit -- !!!"

Maguro said...

Qadaffi leaves or is removed from power; and then nothing

And if he doesn't leave, then...

jr565 said...

Simon wrote:
you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that no one will give you specific goals for the mission and then, when you are given them, complain that the goals are too specific

I'm not saying they're not specific (though certainl I am callling you libs hypocrites for suddenly pushing regime change by force) 'm saying the plans are only half formed. THere has to be something more to the plan than kill the leader (and are we now advocating assassinations?). Who are the rebels? are they jihadists? Do you know? Do you care? If our goal is to remove the dicator and then the rebels decid to fight amongst themselves to take control and civilians are killed in droves, is that not a calculation that we should think about?

kent said...

If you genuinely believe the Team Blue bombs raining upon and killing brown people are materially different from Team Red bombs doing same, either in justification or effect: the only intellectually defensible means of advancing that argument is responding honestly and forthrightly to the seven queries at hand and actually making said case (if possible).

[::crickets::]

[::crickets::]

[::crickets::]

Allllllllllllrighty, then.

Cedarford said...

Kent - Good 5:55PM post!

Hoosier - As expected, it looks like the near-bankrupt, industries and jobs sent to China, US of A, is stuck with most of Libya ops. Italy gets cold feet - what else is new in the Italian pattern going back to the 1830s and on conflicts Italy has been in?? They just shortened the time down to days.
Turkey is about as worthwhile a US ally as Israel or Pakistan or Egypt. Only allies because of geopolitics for Egypt and Turkey, god knows why with the Pakis, or in Israel's case a Powerful Lobby, influential Jews, WWII guilt, and the Christian Zionists.

The Germans? Useless. Maybe all the true, natural frontline warriors were removed from the gene pool in favor of the unfit, and the rear ech types. Maybe they really do want to lower themselves to the Swiss, whose amorality in pursuit of the buck , and Neutral status, open for business from all who wish to park their nations billions - they crave.
I heard the Germans sent one chinsy rescue detachment to Japan. Arriving there, they got word from the embassy about the ongoing nuke accident and releases. And the rescue team talked about it with embassy, and decided to return to Germany "until things were better understood, give the risks".

former law student said...

If you genuinely believe the Team Blue bombs raining upon and killing brown people are materially different from Team Red bombs doing same, either in justification or effect: the only intellectually defensible means of advancing that argument is responding honestly and forthrightly to the seven queries at hand and actually making said case (if possible).

kent, isn't your mother a whore? Prostitution is the exchange of sex for money, and didn't your father give your mother money? And didn't your mother have sex with him?

I rest my case.

Chef Mojo said...

@FLS:

Such an entirely predictable response on your part. Useless, flaccid and moronic.

Obviously, you have no intention of answering the questions. You only wish to change the subject to deflect from the object of your rimjob. You've got your tongue so far up your Boy God's ass, you're tickling the back of his throat.

You, and the rest of you Alpha Liberals stand there naked in the cold light of truth as unmatched hypocrites.

Now, piss off.

Hoosier Daddy said...

kent, isn't your mother a whore?

Stayin classy as always FLS.

Bob said...

Let me see. Bush was villified for conducting a war where we took a year building a coalition for a year. Then took three weeks to destroy the fifth or sixth largest land army. And who was then, rightfully, criticized for not having a Phase IV plan.

Obama seems to have rushed in 3 weeks into a war where the coalition is thin and where we'll see how long it takes to overthrow a force that's probably the 40th in size. And with no Phase III or Phase IV planning.

And Bush is seen as dumb. He could at least claim some surprise at results but the oh-so smart Obama seems to have learned zero lessons from either of the wars he is still fighting.

kent said...

ME: If you genuinely believe the Team Blue bombs raining upon and killing brown people are materially different from Team Red bombs doing same, either in justification or effect: the only intellectually defensible means of advancing that argument is responding honestly and forthrightly to the seven queries at hand and actually making said case (if possible).

IMPOTENT TROLL: kent, isn't your mother a whore?

SHORTER IMPOTENT TROLL: "No, it is not possible."

Game. Set. Match.

Chef Mojo said...

@kent:

Yeah. That does pretty much sum it up.

From Inwood said...

kent

Wasn't failed law student's mother a failed law student?

I can't wait for his next six questions to you.

From Inwood said...

From The Anchoress via Instapundit:

THE ANCHORESS LOOKS AT OBAMA’S BUSH-LIKE APPROACH TO LIBYA AND COMMENTS: “I guess what I’m wondering is, how much further along would the Iraq government’s stabilization be — how much further along would the quest for democratic governance be, in the Middle East (and how much less reluctant would tyrants be to try to stop it by killing their own people), if only the Democrats hadn’t wasted 6 years politicizing our efforts and another two years bowing and scraping and restarting and gasbagging and doing everything they could to say, ‘we’re not Bush,’ only to become all they said they hated?”

kent said...

I can't wait for his next six questions to you.

In opting for a spluttered, hysterically feeble "yo mama," rather than making an honest go at answering what are, after all, seven simple, perfectly straightforward questions: he's already whizzed his concession straight down one pants leg. ;)

Revenant said...

Qadaffi leaves or is removed from power; and then nothing. Then the mission is done. That's now a limited military operation works: the goal is achieved, the mission is done.

*Are* those our goals? Obama hasn't said as much, there's no Congressional declaration explaining why we're at war, and the United Nations sanction we are operating under doesn't actually say that either.

"Get rid of Qaddafi and then go the hell home immediately" sounds fine, but I'm skeptical that's the plan.

Revenant said...

If he knew she was a hypocrite, why'd he hire her as Secretary of State?

"Saying one thing and doing another" is the definition of "hypocrisy", but it serves equally well as a definition for "international diplomacy".

Fen said...

but it is just as important to ask why so many conservatives are against this war action in Libya but were for the war action in Iraq.

We are not against it. We are harping on the hypcocrisy and incompetence of Team Obama.

It's just a reversal based on partisanship.

Nope, its not.

From Inwood said...

One further issue on which I'll defer to Prof A.

One World Government Obama
By Ben Stein on 3.22.11

Maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?

...

Where did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya? There was no declaration of war. There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi....


I don't think that the issue is as simple as Mr S would have it, but I would like to note that many (most?) of my Liberal friends hectored me for 8 years about BushHitler “shredding” their (their?) constitution.

kent said...

but I would like to note that many (most?) of my Liberal friends hectored me for 8 years about BushHitler “shredding” their (their?) constitution.

"Democrat bombs goooood. Republican bombs baaaaaad."

/leftard

former law student said...

Kent, If you genuinely believe that your mother's exchanging money for sex is materially different from a common streetwalker doing the same, either in justification or effect, then the only intellectually defensible means of advancing that argument is responding honestly and forthrightly to the seven bullshit questions I have yet to make up, and actually making said case (if possible).

kent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kent said...

Kent, If you [SNIP]

Pfffftt. Even weaker and lamer. If possible.

You're standing in a hole entirely of your own creation, kitten. There's a famous aphorism concerning what one should ideally be doing, under said circumstance.

Failed attempt at redefining "seven questions I'm too intellectually craven and/or dishonest to attempt answering" as "seven bullshit questions" noted and mocked, incidentally.

AllenS said...

Paulio said...
Ummm....there's actually tons of liberal criticism of this. For Pete's sake, The Daily Show is already mocking him. Maybe read something other than Althouse's cherry-picked quotes for your news...

So, you think that The Daily Show is a news organization?

Simon said...

jr565 said...
"Simon wrote [some stuff.] …
I am callling you libs hypocrites for suddenly pushing regime change by force
"

LOL. I know I've been away for a while, but this is a riot. You think I'm a liberal? You think I was against the war in Iraq? You must be new here, and your presumptions are very, very far wide of the mark.

Revenant said...
"*Are* those our goals? Obama hasn't said as much, there's no Congressional declaration explaining why we're at war, and the United Nations sanction we are operating under doesn't actually say that either."

Those are my goals, and my understanding had been that they were our goals. I thought the President said that the week before last, although the White House has hedged in recent days, and as you point out, the UN sanction doesn't say that. (Not that I believe we should have gone to the UN, or, having done so, that we are bound by its decisions.)

From Inwood said...

kent

Failed law Student has also failed to learn how to use the Socratic Method beloved by all law school profs.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your answer to what is apparently Failed's Big Question: is your mother a failed whoredom student?

kent said...

Failed law Student has also failed to learn how to use the Socratic Method beloved by all law school profs.

For sheer, balls-out hilarity, however, nothing -- and I do mean nothing -- beats his flailing attempts at tarting up naked, abject cowardice (in his refusal to honestly answer seven simple, straightforward queries) as somehow being a shining exemplar of rock-jawed, resolute intellectual principle (!!!). Heh.

Failed can have any relevant questions (up to seven) answered, once he has demonstrated genuine due diligence in completing his already overdue assignment. Dessert is what comes at the end of the meal. ;)

kent said...

Let Ace's disdainful summation write finis to the resounding, crashing failure of this site's resident leftards to even decently attempt squaring the circle of their own (formerly) adamantine assertions:

"Their only resolution of this contradiction ["Team Blue Bombs Good; Team Red Bombs Bad"] is: It's okay when we do it, because our hearts are pure.

"No, they're not. They're black with hate and what's worse, they're stupid with hate.

"I can understand perfectly well why Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh and the rest of the bastards are so angry we're confronting them with their past evil utterances. It's very embarrassing to be outed as a villain.

"But the fact that the charge is deadly makes it no less true."

former law student said...

seven simple, straightforward queries

Loaded questions, questions that presuppose the condition asked about -- those are simple and straightforward in your world?

Question 1 falsely equates an invasion to establishing a No-Fly Zone.

Question 2 begs the question that Obama is invading Libya.

Question 3 presupposes that we are at war with Libya.

Question 4: as 3

Question 5: as Question 3

Question 6: as Question 1

Question 7: as Question 3

kent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kent said...

Loaded questions, questions that presuppose the condition asked about

Failed attempt at argument by assertion, noted. (Sweet fluffy baby Jesus, but you surely do suck at this...)

Even the lowliest burrowing rodent or invertebrate knows, instinctively, when to finally stop digging, kiddo.

Which, ultimately, does leave you something to strive for, personal growth-wise... so: there's that, at least.

That's two entire days you've now spent in nothing more productive (or face-saving) than maladroit arm-waving and special pleading. Peddle cheap rationalizations for rank cowardice someplace else, Failed. Ain't nobody here buying.

kent said...

... and let's really tie a big, gaudy "voila!" bow atop the bald hypocrisy and indefensible cowardice that's so sadly (yet revealingly) characterized Leftardia's shrieking, pearl-clutching response to seven wee, bitsy questions, throughout all of this:

White House: This isn’t a war, it’s a “kinetic military action”

Pa. Thetic. ROTFLMAO!!!

From Inwood said...

kent

I can see now why failed law student failed: it's not just that he can't answer the Socratic QQ, he doesn't understand them.

But again, IMHO, we are missing the Big Questions

(1) Why your mother's a failed whoredom student &

(2) What the heck's going on while we're having this intellectual exercise showing the hypocrisy of Liberals,

• GOP Pres bombing of some foreign land = shredding my (sic) Constitution
• Dem Pres bombing of some foreign land = President preserving & protecting my (sic) Constitution

The legality of a President’s powers in the case of War, quasi war, “Police Action” “kinetic military action” whatever, has been covered adequately by Ilya Somin in The Volokh Conspiracy,

http://volokh.com/2011/03/22/jack-goldsmith-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-libya-intervention/

in which he considers

The Problem of Constitutional Ambiguity &

Historical Practices

So, let the trolls & committed Libs pretend that they weren’t smug know-nothings for eight years & are refusing to admit their hypocrisy.

Let me repeat, with his permission what a friend has said:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/03/23/obamas-war-on-libya-versus-the-constitution/

The problem with Obama’s Libyan Adventure is that it’s fundamentally stupid, not unconstitutional. We shouldn’t use the US military to stop murders in foreign countries unless we’re prepared to stop … and remove the murderer too...
There’s ample justification to remove Ka-daffy for his past terrorist acts against the US... But apart from some rhetorical asides where Obama says that Ka-daffy’s departure is desired, he’s made it clear that the official justification for our actions is to simply stop Ka-daffy’s airplanes from killing his people, not regime change…
This isn’t a policy. It’s a pseudo-academic exercise.
Debating the presumed Constitutionality ... misses the point. Instead, we ought to be debating the wisdom of pursuing a half-assed policy that even the Secretary of Defense says we’re making up as we go along, where the consequences for our national security are dubious at best. Are we going to allow Ka-daffy to remain in power? What happens if we try to remove him and he stays in power? Who exactly are we helping to take over for him if he’s forced out or killed? And why again are we doing this in the first place?
You know, little things like this.

Believing anything a politician says is the height of insanity. Believing anything Obama says is reason for commitment!

Like most Democrats, for him history begins that morning, so what he said before has no operational relevance to what he purports to believe today.

In fact, I’m not sure that Obama really “believes” anything --- at least, nothing he can state publicly. His governing philosophy consists of hackneyed liberal slogans about power and economics, none of which have any relationship to the real world, but all of which make for great academic wine and cheese party discussions.
.

kent said...

(1) Why your mother's a failed whoredom student

Sir! The preferred terminology is: "Kinetic Military Doxy!" ;)