February 28, 2016

"The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven."

"This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Middle Eastern country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation’s chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether, when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.... The New York Times’s examination of the intervention offers a detailed accounting of how Mrs. Clinton’s deep belief in America’s power to do good in the world ran aground in a tribal country with no functioning government, rival factions and a staggering quantity of arms. The Times interviewed more than 50 American, Libyan and European officials, including many of the principal actors. Virtually all agreed to comment on the record. They expressed regret, frustration and in some cases bewilderment about what went wrong and what might have been done differently..."

96 comments:

Curious George said...

What doomed her first attempt at the White House was liberal white guilt.

YoungHegelian said...

So, I guess "Don't do stupid shit" just didn't contain as much epistemological depth as was first hoped, eh?

robinintn said...

I won't click through to the NYT, but if "her deep commitment to America's ability to do good" is what they're going with, the article is crap. The emails show the intervention to be based on her desire to enrich her buddy Sid Blumenthal. She's a horrid, small, corrupt person.

Ann Althouse said...

"I won't click through to the NYT, but if "her deep commitment to America's ability to do good" is what they're going with, the article is crap."

So it's a problem to have a high-level abstraction to guide you, because you could go very wrong.

You and Hillary are 2 peas in a pod!

Curious George said...

J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were unavailable for comment.

AllenS said...

Is anyone comfortable with POTUS Clinton having her finger on the nuclear button?

AReasonableMan said...

Curious George said...
What doomed her first attempt at the White House was liberal white guilt.


Bullshit. It was her vote for the Iraq war and the fact that Obama was a better candidate.

AllenS said...

ARM, you're both correct.

n.n said...

One of the consequences of the social justice movement, and progressive wars, regime change, etc. They assassinated him and lost some Americans in the trade. And it (refugee crises, etc.) all started with a premature, opportunistic evacuation from Iraq.

Curious George said...

"AReasonableMan said...
Bullshit. It was her vote for the Iraq war and the fact that Obama was a better candidate."

Because he was black.

Curious George said...

Cliff notes:

The Libya mess was not Obama's fault. It was Clinton's. But she did it for all the right reasons and is still very awesome.

robinintn said...

So the Times article did cover her real motivation? I knew it was a risk that your snippet didn't cover everything; that's why I noted that I hadn't read the whole article. I do click through most things before I comment (Mr. Money Mustache was fascinating), but i don't feel right giving the times the traffic.

David Begley said...

Turns out the really smart Hillary and Barack were actually dumber than old George Bush.

AReasonableMan said...

Curious George said...
Because he was black.


He lost votes because he was black, in both the primaries and the general. This was well established at the time. There is not that much white guilt in many regions of the country.

Curious George said...

Nope

samanthasmom said...

He didn't lose my vote because he was black. He didn't get my vote because he's slime.

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
Turns out the really smart Hillary and Barack were actually dumber than old George Bush.


Cost of the Iraq war: 2 trillion and counting
Cost of the Libya war: rounding errors in the military budget

US dead in the Iraq war: 4,425
US dead in the Libya war: 4

US injured in the Iraq war: 32,223
US injured in the Libya war: 4

No one is dumber than Bush Jr.

MayBee said...

Barack Obama had a 70% Favorability rating as he headed toward inauguration in 2009. The idea he lost votes due to his blackness really doesn't fit with his popularity at the time.

MayBee said...

ARM- do you not see a cost of the Libya invasion/creation of a failed state to be the stronghold of ISIS (and also, the creation of a failed state)?

David Begley said...

AReasonableman

Unforced error to even go into Libya. The same Libya which is now an ISIS training ground.

Glad to know four dead Americans is acceptable to you all in service of Sid Bluementhal's potential future net worth.

And if you can't put a value on pinning the jihadists down over there rather than fighting them here, you are not reasonable.

tim in vermont said...

You have to remember that Hillary also advocated the support of the overthrow of Assad.

So once it became clear that intervening in the affairs of brutal ME strongmen was stupid, or at leas that the United States' electorate had resoundingly rejected such a policy. Hillary did it again... TWICE

And nobody is stupider than George W Bush? LO FUCKING L.

Hillary and Barack Save the World! It's the stupidest thing I ever heard!"

And yet Hillary did it.

AReasonableMan said...

ISIS is an acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, no mention of Libya.

tim in vermont said...

"I think we're gonna need some re-enforcements out here!" - Hillary

MayBee said...

ReasonableMan-

DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea. No mention of Communism.

tim in vermont said...

ISIS is an acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, no mention of Libya.

No Libya was a target of opportunity, created by Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

I don't know why I am responding to a commenter who is doing such a good job of discrediting himself.

Michael K said...

"Bullshit. It was her vote for the Iraq war and the fact that Obama was a better candidate."

I agree with AllenS.

Obama was a better candidate but that is a very low standard, He reads from a TelePrompTer much better. He appears in Gates' book to enjoy making decisions but has only a leftist ideology and amateurish aides to determine the correct decision. The military, which Obama and his aides distrusted even more than Bill Clinton did, begged him to wait on the gay military decision until the troops were given a chance to consider consequences and report back. He announced it without any military input.

Every decision, like the Johnson administration in Vietnam, was made for domestic political reasons. His terrible conduct of the presidency stems from his inexperience and his single focus on leftist theory.

The only reason a man with his lack of experience was elected was his skin color and his glib manner. McCain was also a poor candidate as he was too old in 2008. I supported him against Bush in 2000. The financial crash made the Republicans a very unlikely winner of that election so we had a perfect storm that gave us Obama.

He will leave us in a very weakened condition in the world, both economically and in national security. I can compare him only to Buchanan. He has been a disaster.

The Drill SGT said...

In this regard Hillary sounds like Bill's Secretary of State:

'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' Madeleine Albright screamed at Colin Powell. Her stinging rebuke could not have been better designed to scrape a raw American nerve, challenging the nation's machismo and role as leader of the free word. Powell reacted furiously. 'I thought I would have an aneurysm,' he recalled. 'American GIs are not toy soldiers to be moved around on some global game board'

Michael said...

ARM

Well there are those dumber than GWB. It would be those who let the dumbest motherfucker ever to draw breath trick them, trick them, into going to war. Even people who spoke foreign languages.

I exclude you and Robert Cook, of course.

David Begley said...

ARM

ISIS is expanding its brand. Coming soon to America thanks to Barack and Hillary.

We could have crushed them early when we had a chance, but Obama didn't want to mess with the JV. Or something.

EDH said...

Mrs. Clinton’s old friend and political adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, who regularly emailed her political advice and vaguely sourced intelligence reports on Libya, urged her to capitalize on the dictator’s fall.

“Brava!” Mr. Blumenthal exclaimed. As always, he was thinking about Mrs. Clinton’s presidential ambitions. “You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment.” She should be sure to use the phrase “successful strategy,” he wrote. “You are vindicated.”


"We came, we saw, he died."

AJ Lynch said...

Don't forget what Hillary said about Quaddafi while cackling "we came, we saw, he died".

AllenS said...

Notice the reaction of the interviewer when Hillary said those words. HAHAHAHA

Mark said...

The lesson of Libya is that it says to all the petty thugs and tyrants around the world - "Don't bother to reform and be nice. Even if you do, we will still come after you and kill you. So don't be a sucker. Keep on committing your atrocities. No point in stopping, it ain't going to gain you anything."

AJ Lynch said...

On that tape, who was Hillary looking at ? The line was probably rehearsed beforehhand and Hillary was looking to her staff for their knowing approval like they were in on the joke?

Charlie Currie said...

AReasonableMan said:

David Begley said...
Turns out the really smart Hillary and Barack were actually dumber than old George Bush.

Cost of the Iraq war: 2 trillion and counting
Cost of the Libya war: rounding errors in the military budget

US dead in the Iraq war: 4,425
US dead in the Libya war: 4

US injured in the Iraq war: 32,223
US injured in the Libya war: 4

No one is dumber than Bush Jr.

W won the Iraq war.

O & H have lost Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and are in the process of losing Afghanistan. Have given Iran billions to spread terrorism across the globe and a free hand to develop nuclear weapons and to arm themselves with the latest Russian technology. Started a human stampede of refugees from the middle East and Africa into Europe. All while kicking Israel to the curb.

The cost of their fecklessness in lives and treasure of all nations, now and far into the future, is incalculable.

Now, who's the dumb one.

robother said...

Its no accident that all the neocons, starting with Robert Kagan are already making plans to endorse Hillary if Trump is the GOP nominee. And, of course the entire Middle East branch of the State Dept. has bought into this "Freedom agenda" interventionist nation-building since the Cold War.

When every President since 1988 has been a graduate of either Harvard or Yale (and would've been if all but 2 of the elections had gone the other way), you tend to get the same world-view. "The Best and the Brightest" seem to keep running the same gameplan, no matter how many quagmires they run us into.

AReasonableMan said...

robother said...
Its no accident that all the neocons .. are already making plans to endorse Hillary if Trump is the GOP nominee.


No it is not. Although many will do this indirectly. The hysteria that ensued after Trump called out the Bush family's futile war mongering was remarkable.

Birkel said...

Hillary's failed War for OIL for France left a political vacuum filled by Islamic terrorists.

Hillary --> More Wars for OIL

AllenS said...

AJ, all that I can find out is that it was a CBS interviewer. Evidently, Hillary and friends had just been notified that Gaddafi was dead. HAHAHAHA

Hagar said...

I think Libyan oil had more to do with this debacle than any romantic notions of "doing good" by takng down dictators. I think the U.S. was played and was used, but so far the parties involved here have been successful in muddying the waters enough to hide how it was done and by whom and for why, though I suspect it has something to do with Western Europe and the oil.
However, it is an old saying that "murder will out." Maybe there is a clue somewhere in all those e-mails.

Birkel said...

AReasonableMan:

Does ISIS make any reference to Paris?

Michael K said...

"Although many will do this indirectly. "

ARM, Robert Kagan has openly endorsed her.

It's nice to be back to normal and on opposite sides of these issues. I was getting worried at the amount of our agreement.

Paul said...

What went wrong in Libya? Obama and Hillary LEFT A POWER VACUUM.

And any political power vacuum will be filled. Thus ISIS, Al Queda, and dozens of smaller factions moved to fill it.

At least George Bush KNEW that and filled it with the US Army.

But our President of Community Organizing and Secratary of Grifting just killed Qudaffy and walked off.

David Begley said...

Hagar

If the Greens and CAGW nuts would let us, we'd be exporting millions of bbls of oil today. We already are the number one oil producer. We would become wealthy! Just last week we just began our exporting of LNG. Too bad the Dems don't put America first.

Michael K said...

Now, we have a new Hillary mystery.

Why can't the press film her boarding her plane ?

Maybe they don't want film of this ?

Sebastian said...

@Paul: Right. W was inadequately prepared but improvised, first ineptly, then more effectively. A lot of people in and outside the administration (and the military) spent a lot of time and effort to get it right--with mixed results, of course, but not for lack of effort. In Libya, as best we can tell, there was no plan for follow-up--and no follow-up.

aritai said...

What if the only answer is colonialism that sets up a working government with at least some rule of law? Give Libya to Total Fina, who already own it, but don't bother paying a strong-man. Keep that money for yourself along with some international rules about what % of the GDP you must invest in infrastructure and schools and keeping the peace. Farm out the jobs to corporations who are already there or want to be there in their self interest, and instead of letting them bribe the local despot have them run the place until they are adult to take over and manage their own affairs in the interest of their people. When they screw up, rinse and repeat, and expect it'll take 3-5 times. It's not that complicated. Do more good for the average citizen than harm. Until then you're a colony with revolutionaries brutally put down, a small fraction of suffering we see today. No more citizens driven to flight. Including Mexico. Total Fina Elf would probably be happy to manage to exploit their oil. Or adopt the communist manifesto. What we're doing today clearly isn't working. And it's causing no end of suffering. Probably more than all the world wars combined.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I started reading the article. I got this far and felt an urgent need to comment:

Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of [Clinton's] assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Hillary Clinton, of all people should understand that telling people what they want to hear and actually doing what you say you're going to do are two different things (sometimes vastly different things). Has that not been her standard mode of operation since early in Bill Clinton's first term as governor?

Birkel said...

"AReasonableMan" believe the following:

1. Wars for French OIL are reasonable.
2. ISIS had nothing to do with the attack in Paris.

and by extension

3. Al Queda means The Base and therefore could not have left The Base to hijack planes.

Balfegor said...

Cost of the Iraq war: 2 trillion and counting

That's over 13 years. The fact that so many people think Iraq was an expensive war is one of the surest signals to our allies that we cannot be relied on in a real war. Just compare Korea -- at the height of active hostilities, we spent about 4% of our GDP defending South Korea and since then, a sizeable chunk of our defense spending has been devoted to maintaining our Korean garrisons. In current terms (GDP of $17.4 billion), that 4% would be the equivalent of a one-year expense of about 730 billion USD. Three years, and you're already well over 2 trillion USD.

At those costs, there's no way the US would be willing to defend Western Europe from attack. Or Korea. Or Japan. Or the Philippines. That's why everyone thinks we're a paper tiger. It's not just Obama. He's the symptom of the disease, not the disease. It's that war is expensive, and Americans don't want to pay any more. We'll intervene as long as it's on the cheap -- sending a carrier group here or there, or invading Iraq or whatever. You'll be home before the leaves fall. But in a real war, we'll fold like a cheap deck of cards.

Birkel said...

Balfegor:

I was told there would be no math.

Big Mike said...

Another excerpt from the article:

The Americans did not believe that the Libyans purporting to speak for the leader could actually deliver a peaceful transfer of power. Colonel Qaddafi, the Americans thought, would simply use a cease-fire as an opportunity to regroup.

If Democrats could stop reviling President Reagan and pay attention to what he actually accomplished, they'd learn that after watching the utterly inept Carter in Iran, Reagan was responsible for the peaceful transition of power from dictators to democratic governments in the Phillipines (Marcos to Aquino), Chile (Pinochet to Aylwin) and Nicaragua (Sandanistas to Chamorro).

Pity Democrats do not know how to learn from their mistakes or others' successes.

Christopher said...

My theory about all of this is that Hillary and Obama bought their own press at the time and wanted to show how they were better than Bush. They too would overthrow a murderous, oil rich tyrant, that funded terrorism, and had a history involving WMDS and they would do it right.

It's now a failed state that serves as a strong hold for ISIS and AQ so they don't like to talk about it.

Obama can ignore it and the media will let that slide, but with Hillary running for president they can't ignore it completely so you get these "she just loves this country too much" stories.

chuck said...

> especially of her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today

Never use few words when more will do. Make it sound intelligent while saying nothing much.

mccullough said...

Obama showed poor judgment in listening to Hillary about Libya. His decision to continue in Afghanistan was also dumb. It's disconcerting to have 16 years of stupidity in foreign policy. It was like Nixon's stupidity in continuing Viet Nam, but at least he was smart enough to end our involvement there. Maybe Obama will wake up and pull us out of "the good war" in Afghanistan.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Is it ISIS or ISIL?

ISIL=Islamic State in Levant

The Levant covers a much bigger area including Libya

John Henry

Birkel said...

mccullough:

Do go on about your lies. Viet Nam was a Nixon pull out? Or Ted Kennedy stopped funding the was effort? Revisionist bull shit is my favorite kind.

Perhaps Islamists will pinky swear to kill you last.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband. Why any surprise that he would support Hillary? His wife needs the job. So does he.

Victoria Nuland of Fuck the EU fame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6IybD3ytSI

It's always good in the morning!

I have no agenda.

John Henry

David said...

Re Vietnam:

Nixon pulled our troops out but did not "end our involvement." We were pledged to supply the South Vietnam army, provide air support and "technical assistance" on the ground.

A Democratic Congress refused to fund that pledge, which ended our involvement in supporting the government of South Vietnam.

Thus setting a precedent of being an unreliable ally that continues to this day.

David said...

Very interesting all of this.

But . . .

After crushing Bernie (remember him?) in South Carolina Hillary is the nominee. Even an indictment will not stop her. Like the NYT article, it would be too late.

Where has the NYT been with this reporting for the last two years?

David Begley said...

PRS

By using ISIL as the term Obama admits and concedes that gang isn't just limited to two countries and will get bigger. Just stupid.

A biotech company here in America had to change its name. It used the name for years.

robother said...

"Where has the NYT been with this reporting for the last two years?"

And, of course this NYT article appears in the Saturday edition, the least read by far.

Skeptical Voter said...

A Reasonable Man says that Obama was a better candidate than Hillary in 2008. Okay ARM, I'll spot you that point. But assuming you are correct---and looking at what a bleeping disaster Obama has been, why would you want to elect someone even less able?

mccullough said...

Birkel,

You're a wimp. Quit asking other people to get killed for your paranoia. Go over there yourself and show the Salafists how tough you are. You won't because you'll never leave the attic like most cowards. nobody is going to kill you birkel. You're not worth anyone's effort.

AReasonableMan said...

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...
Is it ISIS or ISIL?

ISIL=Islamic State in Levant

The Levant covers a much bigger area including Libya


Libya is not part of any modern definition of the Levant.

Robert Cook said...

"And it (refugee crises, etc.) all started with a premature, opportunistic evacuation from Iraq."

It all started with a criminal, opportunistic entry into (i.e., invasion of) Iraq.

Robert Cook said...

"'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' Madeleine Albright screamed at Colin Powell. Her stinging rebuke could not have been better designed to scrape a raw American nerve, challenging the nation's machismo and role as leader of the free word. Powell reacted furiously. 'I thought I would have an aneurysm,' he recalled. 'American GIs are not toy soldiers to be moved around on some global game board'"

But that's exactly what they are, and have been for more than a century.

Robert Cook said...

Michael said:

"ARM

"Well there are those dumber than GWB. It would be those who let the dumbest motherfucker ever to draw breath trick them, trick them, into going to war. Even people who spoke foreign languages.

"I exclude you and Robert Cook, of course."


Who says anyone was tricked into going to war? Those in American government responsible for our ongoing criminal wars in the Middle East knew there was no basis to invade Iraq, but when the public has been infected with war fever--a result of the trauma of 9/11 and the carefully crafted propaganda and lies of the White House--and when many in Washington knew and agreed with the real purposes--oil, asserting American hegemony, oil--only those few with integrity and political bravery were going to go against the crowd.

Birkel said...

mccullough:

How absolutely silly of you. Internet tough guys are so rare so it's a wonder to meet you, the Real McCoy.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

It is generally agreed on the left that Bush lied and people died. Surely you are acquainted with that point of view? If not you can easily look it up here on the internets.

Birkel said...

Michael:

And Hillary was explicit about Lybia being a war for French OIL. No lying there, at least.

ken in tx said...

Jihadis all over the world have announced themselves loyal to the Caliph of the Islamic State. They don't say ISIL or ISIS. That's a newsreader thing. The Islamic State is supposed to be world wide.

Robert Cook said...

Balfegor said,

""The fact that so many people think Iraq was an expensive war is one of the surest signals to our allies that we cannot be relied on in a real war."

It's not just whether a war is expensive, but whether a war is necessary. We haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII. Our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and ancillary areas of the Middle East are not just unnecessary, they're criminal acts of aggression on our part. Spending $2 trillion over 13 years on illegal, unnecessary acts of aggression is expensive more ways than financially, but in an era where America's economy is bottoming out and joblessness (or underemployment) and poverty is rising, where our national infrastructure is crumbling, where that money could be used for productive purposes at home, it is a criminal squandering of the people's money.

"At those costs, there's no way the US would be willing to defend Western Europe from attack. Or Korea. Or Japan. Or the Philippines. That's why everyone thinks we're a paper tiger."

Who says we fight any war to defend others? Of course that's always our justification, but our real purposes are always those of self-interest. Always. And the problem is less that we're perceived as a "paper tiger" but that we're accurately seen as a dangerous and lawless bully nation.

n.n said...

Robert Cook:

And before that, invasion of a sovereign nation, defeat in war, a declared ceasefire, decade long violations, and ultimately a deposition and trial of a war criminal. Followed by replacement of a dictatorship by an honest broker, including security force and diplomatic corp, which were prematurely removed for a political opportunity, leaving behind factional conflicts and a progressive (i.e. malignant) terrorist state.

Robert Cook said...

"It is generally agreed on the left that Bush lied and people died. Surely you are acquainted with that point of view?"

I am acquainted--and agree--with that point of view.

My point is that Congress was hardly so naive as to fall for Bush's lies--at least, I would be shocked if they were--but voted for war for political reasons. Or rather, they didn't vote for war; they cravenly surrendered their constitutional responsibility to declare war and simply voted to give Bush the authority to do whatever he deemed necessary to whomever he deemed it necessary to be done, if he deemed it necessary, to prevail in the fabricated "war on terror."

They abdicated their authority...they punked out.

(Many American citizens did fall for the Bush Administration's lies--a product of the ignorance in which we're kept by our own representatives, and of the tendency of humans to be easily scared and consequently quick to lash out stupidly, violently, and blindly. It is dismaying to see how so easily so many fell for obvious bullshit, and more dismaying to see how many hold fast even today to their belief in the obvious bullshit rationales for our illegal wars.)

Amanda said...

"Birkel,
You're a wimp. Quit asking other people to get killed for your paranoia. Go over there yourself and show the Salafists how tough you are. You won't because you'll never leave the attic like most cowards. nobody is going to kill you birkel. You're not worth anyone's effort."

LOLing.

Amanda said...

"Obama showed poor judgment in listening to Hillary about Libya. His decision to continue in Afghanistan was also dumb. It's disconcerting to have 16 years of stupidity in foreign policy. It was like Nixon's stupidity in continuing Viet Nam, but at least he was smart enough to end our involvement there. Maybe Obama will wake up and pull us out of "the good war" in Afghanistan"

So right.

Balfegor said...

Re: Robert Cook:

We haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.

Duly noted. I will say I am grateful your sort of people were not in power in the 50's, or my grandparents would have been lined up and shot by the Communists. It is generally in the interests of the US to support friendly powers when they are attacked, if we want to keep our friends.

n.n said...

Paul:

Exactly. The army on the ground to stabilize the nation and mediate between diverse factions, and a diplomatic corp to negotiate reconciliation between leaders.

A war criminal was brought to trial, a power vacuum was filled with an honest broker, and the people had an opportunity to overcome several thousand years of generational conflicts and sectarian distrust.

Robert Cook said...

"Followed by replacement of a dictatorship by an honest broker, including security force and diplomatic corp, which were prematurely removed for a political opportunity, leaving behind factional conflicts and a progressive (i.e. malignant) terrorist state."

An example of someone who holds fast to belief in the lies and illusions surrounding our illegal invasion of Iraq. Madeline Albright, is that you?

Michael K said...

"Libya is not part of any modern definition of the Levant."

I'm not so sure as it refers to where the sun rises. There was no Libya when the term was originally used.

n.n said...

Mark:

The lesson of Libya is that it says to all the petty thugs and tyrants around the world - "Don't bother to reform and be nice.

That's a good point. Gaddafi paid a penalty and reformed during the Reagan years, only to be ostensibly trapped in a social justice movement, which subsequently lead to his assassination, brutal regime change, dysfunctional state, and a refugee crisis.

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

Robert Cook:

The sequence of events are not in dispute. Ideally, Hussein would have been held accountable under the Clinton administration after demonstrating repeatedly that he would not comply with the terms of the ceasefire.

n.n said...

The New York Time is trying to relieve Obama of responsibility from his progressive wars, in an attempt to secure Obama's legacy and their investment in a "historical moment".

John Henry said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...

We haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.

Why do you think WWII was "necessary" for us? This was a war that FDR lied us into even more than Bush in Iraq.

We claimed to be neutral (to DEC 41) but were attacking German subs that were no danger to the US. We claimed to be neutral but were invading German territory (Iceland) We claimed to be neutral but were giving, via the fiction of Lend Lease England arms, ammunition and other war supplies.

As late as November '41 70-80% of the American public was against US involvement in another European war. In '40 FDR ran on a platform of keeping us out of it. As did Wilson in 16 and LBJ in 64.

FDR forced Germany to declare war on us.

Why do you think it was necessary for the US? We had no dog in that fight. I agree with Robert Kagan's wife "Fuck the EU". I would add Fuck Europe while we are about it.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Wikipedia is unclear about what the Levant is. It has a map of the Levant that clearly shows Libya as part of it.

OTOH, in the text it mentions several countries but not Libya.

John Henry

Michael K said...

The Greeks, who were referred to as "Levantines," as a term of opprobrium, ran the Ottoman Empire and that extended all over the Mediterranean. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1920 after WWI, Turkey expelled the Greeks who had lived there for a thousand years. The whole area of Athens to the east and south is mostly Greeks from Turkey.

traditionalguy said...

American entry into WWII was necessary to see who could develop the U235 fission device FIRST. Being first was a matter of life and death. There was no second place award.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

@John Henry:

Perhaps you are right. I have heard others make similar arguments. Let's put it this way: if there has ever been a war that was a necessary war for us to fight, it was WWII. If WWII was not necessary for us, then no war we have ever fought has been a necessary war. So...we should disband our military and put the arms profiteers out of business. We can spend that money on better things for American citizens.

elcee said...

"This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign"

Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote (advice to Hillary Clinton).

tim in vermont said...

Here we have an accurate news story in a liberal, and let's face it, Democratic Party organ, laying out in detail Hillary's bad judgement and its disastrous consequences. This person is up for the presidency. All the Democrats on this forum have to talk about is ancient history. It's little wonder, if I felt like party was more important than the country, and I was a Democrat, I guess I would probably do the same thing.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

Great idea. After another country invades and kills all the stupid people who disarm, I plan to kick your rotting corpse.

Rusty said...

So...we should disband our military and put the arms profiteers out of business. We can spend that money on better things for American citizens.

Constitutionally we can't do that.