Here’s your chance to explain things to the rest of us.
This is what you Obama supporters voted for:
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
SUNAPEE, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
“The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems.”
“ I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. . . . But . . . he poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.”
And from a book a current US President wrote:
“Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
So you can explain why you now support this:
“Innocent people were targeted for killing,” he said. “We had a unique ability to stop that violence . . . and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.”
President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its allies had to take military action in Libya to avert a massacre of civilians that would have “stained the conscience of the world.”
And what happens when those “peaceful protester” rebels with AK’s and RPG’s attack civilian supporters of Gaddafi? Is that acceptable to you?
So let’s hear it. Let’s hear why genocide in Iraq and Darfur is acceptable and suddenly it’s not acceptable in Libya. Tell us how you voted for the guy who said in no uncertain terms that he would NOT do any of the things he’s done with regard to Libya.
Now I have to make some popcorn. This is going to be fun.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Any attempts at answering this are going to be of the variety “you just don’t understand the nuance!” .
Any honest answer would be identical to “It’s OK when our guy does it.”.
Either answer displays the shallow intellectual depth of the left, and there is no third option.
I think part of the nuance will be, as long as there is limited force involved. Obama loves drones and bombing, but is not as thrilled about the military on the ground.
However, the problem is here that, the rebels are on the ground, knocking on the door of Kaddafy’s hometown, and will there be any indiscriminate killing which results? Of, if they are rebuffed, do we bomb the city, which will undoubtedly take out innocent life.
Obama has put himself in a difficult position here (as is any politician in war), but he really has no fundamental doctrine from which he bases his decisions.
Your article on oil and Libya was dead-on. How Obama got sucked into that, is a matter for speculation, but I doubt that he took a look at the overall landscape and decided to go in on his own. I think he was nagged or talked into going in.
The hypocrisy of the anti-war left and MSM is a sight to behold.
Where is the no blood for oil crowd hiding? Where is Code Pink and ANSWER?
Not even in the irrational bizarre fantasy world of a liberal democrat can they square oBama’s and Biden’s past words on Congressional approval for military conflict, that does not pose an imminent threat to the US , and what oBama has done in Libya.
BTW – Who exactly is oBama supporting in this endeavor? Is it the people who now run Libya and want to see 300 million Americans dead, or it the people who hope to rule Libya and want to see 300 million Americans dead.
Typical silly oversimplification. Are you saying under President Clinton the US and world community did nothing in Iraq, because I sure remember a no-fly zone in Northern and Southern Iraq? In other words, there are more options to addressing a problem of this sort than either doing nothing or a full scale invasion. If Obama didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, that’s not the same thing as saying he thinks genocide there is “acceptable”. Perhaps he wanted to push for more sanctions, more inspections ; perhaps, as horrible as these type of calculations are, he didn’t think the cost to America was worth the reward. All debatable points, as are his choices and performance regarding Libya, but because you insist on dishonest oversimplification and applying a sinister immoral sheen to everything this President does, there’s no point in having this conversation with you. Someone associated with the left like John Stewart is willing to come down hard on Obama when he thinks he’s wrong. Likewise, Bill O’Reilly has grudgingly agreed with him on occasion. You, on the other hand, have never demonstrated a willingness to give him credit for anything he’s done right. That renders your opinion, in my eyes, meaningless, because its coming 100% from a place of personal and ideological animosity.
Anyway, did you consider that perhaps the answer to your question is right in the President’s speech:
I imagine all the hot air in your cranium is uniquely qualified for such a task. Enjoy!
Ah yes.. the very expensive and years long no fly zone under which Saddam handily conducted his OFF suberterfuge smuggling, and worked hand in hand with terror groups. Then, ultimately, refused inspections. Roaring success that was. Didn’t depose him, did it? That took ground forces.
That’s because it’s not about “genocide”, Tom. It’s about oil and regime change… the very same things he and the other hypocrites accused Bush the younger of in Iraq. Or is there something in the words “Gaddafi must go” that escapes you? Do you think that presidential homes/palaces contain anti aircraft capabilities and are no fly targets? Is it to prevent Gaddafi from using his air power only? Or is the coalition fighting the ground war when they go beyond taking out Libya’s SA-5 anti aircraft missile batteries, and then start bombing their 70s vintage Russian T-72 battle tanks? That’s not the quest of the no fly zone, as even Hillary noted in an interview, along with Sec’y Gates, conducted by Jake Tapper.
AIR defenses… not tanks, not palaces. Damn… I didn’t know tanks could fly.
What the coalition is doing, theoretically “lead by” da Zero… heh, that was a hilarious moment in his speech… is taking sides, and fighting the civil war on behalf of a rebel force who’s intent and members are not only not known, but have great reason to question. We are aiding the very same people who crossed into Iraq to battle our US forces there.
The goal is regime change… the same that was done in Iraq, but for lesser legitimate reasons. Worse yet, changed to what? Few leaders have the balls to stand before their nation and tell the truth, hiding behind this “humanitarian” BS. But the rhetoric is unmistakable.
The rebels? They don’t hide the fact that they are loving the possibility of being “armed”, and having the coalition fight their civil war for them.
As for Obama’s speech writer, putting in this little diddy… “…we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”…. I’d say he needs a new yardstick. Because he’s way off on this one. But with a few styrofoam Greek columns in the background, and the fireworks of the US Tomahawks as a soundtrack, while speaking of being “wherever repression occurs” there are susceptible fools out there who buy it – hook, link and sinker.
@Tom:
Ah, the farmer returns and brings another complete set of straw men with him.
Sure I did.
Can you find a single qualifier in any of Barack Husseinocrite Obama’s words prior to his becoming king? Where was that when genocide was not enough to stay in Iraq? Where is the qualifier when he said
“The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems.” or
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.”
??
I don’t see a qualifier in any of them. Do you?
Well, of course you do. You imagine it. It’s not there, but that was yesterday and yesterday’s gone.
Right?
There is a key element that has been neglected and it stems from the a condition we used to call a split personality or in Obama’s situation we have teleprompter Obama versus Obama in the raw (not necessarily nude, thank goodness). The earlier speeches or interviews, during the Bush years, were probably raw Obama; a completely different fish in the kettle than teleprompter Obama. In all fairness, this is bound to create problems and the very real appearance of schism within the personality.
The raw Obama personality is further complicated by the Obama the author personality; a result of not being able to write except through the dubious personalities and keyboards of others.
Thus we are bound to have confusion; however, it can be argued with logic and pathos: we elected an undocumented president, why do we insist on documentation and detail at this period running up to an election? Perhaps we should use introspection and ask why we are so critical; after all, he is being packaged and manufactured to fit current situations, situations that are dynamic and in a continual state of flux.
Honesty and integrity are difficult terms to define when n essence someone else puts the thoughts and words in your brain and mouth and to expect a logical flow of expression and ideas is asking a bit too much. We have no idea who or how many personalities are writing those phrases on the teleprompter.
If we on the listening side had others interpreting the information for us, without employing critical analysis, these little problems of cohesion and continuity wouldn’t exist. Is it a far jump ahead into technology from listening to scripted policies and justification to having scripted interpretation? We have the news organizations interpreting for us now; unfortunately, there are many who are refusing to get on board and accept this technology. Consequently, there will be problems in the future; at least until a Fairness Doctrine can alleviate the problems encountered through misinterpretation of relevant facts. Eventually, we can all interpret and think with a uniform direction of purpose and we wont waste all this time on trying to create a linear system of logic from Obama’s speeches and policies; precisely because, it doesn’t exist.
Therefore it is his opposition that is creating the problems where none need to exist. We must recognize that a president, like the Constitution, is an ever evolving entity and that without this ability to evolve and be creative, the problems of the future cannot be met, except with ideas of the past.
@Tom:
That would, of course, require the presumption that Obama has done something right while in the WH.
@Skookum:
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
@johngalt: Good point.
But it might be argued that going to play golf and not screwing the country up is a good thing.
Campaigner Obama seems to have stepped into the shadows of President Obama. The answer is simple: all Obama has to do is admit that he might have been wrong for criticizing military actions of earlier Commanders-in-chief, and that he now realizes that such action is necessary at times. However, since Campaigner Obama is needed for the ramp-up to the 2012 presidential election, I doubt we’ll hear many “I was wrong” (or similar) comments from the chap.
Jeff
@JVerive:
He could, but that would repudiate everything for which he stood and it would also repudiate all those who voted for him because of those beliefs.
Now in supporting Obama they self-refudiate. One might say they are master-refudiators.
There are those who may consider my post above to be sarcasm and still others who view it as an honest portrayal of our president and his doctrines: to both groups, may I commend you on your interpretation and remind you that sarcasm isn’t successful at being controversial and or poignant without an element of truth.
@MataHarley:
I’m not the one who said it was about “genocide”. I’m the one pointing out that Dr John framing it as such is completely bogus, or did you not read his post or my response? Furthermore, the President himself admitted that national interest was the key consideration (please see the portion of his speech in bold I quoted above). Not sure why you feel the need to direct all this in my direction, when you should be taking it up with him.
Bait ‘n’ switch alert!
The word drj used, genocide, is incorrect. What he should have used was the word your POTUS uses… humanitarian. That’s the extent of the “bogus”.
My response did not center around the strawman of word parsing. It was to your defense of Obama’s doctrine by comparing it to the Iraq no fly zone, and the erroneous conclusions that there are “other ways” to accomplish regime change…. er, “humanitarian”… goals.
Were the goal humanitarian, even a no fly is absurd since Libyan ground military force can still… and is.. overwhelming the opposition. If the goal is regime change, coalition ground forces will be necessary. You cannot arm the rebels since they are a questionable bunch, and we’ll find it turned on us in the future. Also, other than the terrorist leaders in their midst, what somewhat genuine rebels there may be are not trained in arms or military strategy to fight Gaddafi forces.
This is one dumb military strategy… thinking you can accomplish regime change with a no fly zone…. and fool fools like you into believing that bombing tanks and presidential homes is part of a no fly mission.
ADDED: Oh yes…. about that “national interest” bit. The Zero says “sure” (surprise, surprise). The Secretary of Defense… the guy Obama doesn’t listen to when considering war, and instead listens to Secy of State and UN Ambassadors… says otherwise. Based on military history and experience, which one shall I consider credible? uh… lemme think…. don’t help….
@johngalt:
And in an upset, the winner for “most predictable response” goes to “not Dr John”! I know I lost money on that.
@Tom:
And what answer would that be, Tom, that he’s a hypocrite at best, or a liar at worst?
I find it amusing that liberals are snowed over by his words now, particularly when they are quite different from what he has stated in the past. As well, his own revisionist history has some people wondering if he really thinks we are that stupid. Acted unilaterally in the past? Is he talking about Iraq? If Iraq is the definition of unilateral action, then Libya most certainly is as well, and Obama is lying about it.
You remember Iraq, don’t you Tom? The military action where we had near twice as many coalition countries as Obama brought in for Libya. The military action where the President actually met with Congress, and received funding authorization for action, unlike Libya. The military action where we waited months and months, and had UN resolution after UN resolution passed, before we actually took action, unlike Libya.
He’s a liar or a hypocrite, and you are apologizing for it.
Apparently, some people *are* that stupid, johngalt….
@Tom:
Snarky responses do not make my comment any less true.
@johngalt:
I’m curious. From my perspective, what would be the point in having an open and honest debate on Obama with someone like you or Dr. John? You both admit a baseline position that he’s not done one thing right while in office. Furthermore, Dr. John has on multiple occasions posited that he believes Obama isn’t even trying to do a good job vis-a-vis American interests, because he’s un and/or anti-American, which makes such a discussion much more difficult, because we can’t even enter into it at least in general agreement on the ends before getting into the means (not sure where you come down on that). Is it within the realm of statistical possibility that you’re correct that Obama has 10,000 out of 10,000 times made the incorrect decision to advance American interests (or in Dr John’s case, the correct decision 10,000 out of 10,000 to not advance American interests)? Yes. But it’s obviously highly unlikely. Therefore I think it’s logical for me to presume that neither of you are equipped to have such a discussion. Not necessarily because you’re dishonest, but because you’re both on this topic – for whatever reason – predisposed to a mode of thinking that’s absolute and fixed and won’t change for anything.
@MataHarley:
zinger.
@Skookum:
Skookum, i think you hit on it.
I recall one State of the Union Address that Obama gave where (up to the last minute) over a dozen writers were all working on it.
Later that day, when we heard Obama deliver it, it sounded disjointed and was lacking in internal consistency.
It wouldn’t hurt Obama if his writers would ”google” him as to what he had said before on similar subject before they put new words in his mouth.
But, it seems, they do not.
In truth, Code Pink’s co-founder, Medea Benjamin has consistently been against war, both Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan AND Obama’s war in Libya.
As irrelevant as Cindy Sheehan might be, she is also consistent in her opposition to war, even if Obama is leading the charge.
But big marches and demonstrations from lefty organizations against a dem leader’s policy?
Ain’t gonna happen.
@MataHarley:
But I did, Mata.
Both terms are correct as POTUS spoke of both and I have cited each of them here and elsewhere.
@Tom:
I admit that my comment in #8 was kinda snarky, however, just because I may believe that doesn’t mean that an open, honest discussion cannot be had with me. Most of what I deem wrong in what he has done is ideological, and goes against my principles that I try to adhere to.
Name a thing you believe he has been right about and we can discuss it. Indeed, I’ve never said that what he has the U.S. doing in Libya is wrong, I’ve merely pointed out that his actions on Libya have gone against his past statements. In that, he is either a hypocrite, or a liar, take your pick.
@MataHarley:
Then perhaps you misunderstood my point. I don’t think that because someone was against the invasion of Iraq that necessarily means he or she finds “genocide” acceptable. (And since i was responding to Dr J, I’ll respond to what he wrote, not to what you think he should have written.) Clinton’s policy was an obvious example of a policy in Iraq that falls between doing nothing and a full scale invasion. That was my point – nowhere did I write anything about a no-fly zone accomplishing regime change. That you made up because you wanted to flame me (is this what the fabled “‘strawman”‘ is that you people keep going on about?) The no-fly zone accomplished more than “nothing” though, unless you think it did nothing for the Kurds.
I would invite you to stop putting words in my mouth. If you have something to say about how awesome the Iraq war was, feel free to write it – I’m sure you’ll get lots of backslapping adoration if that’s what you’re in it for – but don’t try using me or what I’ve written as some kind of fake adversary.
@johngalt:
Fair enough. How about his policy of staying on the offensive against Al Queda, including the outright killing of many high-value targets and the increased use of drone attacks in Pakistan? This is a policy that leaves many on the Left rather queasy, yet Obama gets no credit for it on the Right, nor for the fact that there hasn’t been a major Al Queda attack on US soil while he’s in office.
@Tom:
I’m not sure what’s wrong with your reading comprehension but something certainly is wrong. Obama himself said that the prevention of genocide was not enough to keep US forces in Iraq. Why is it you are so completely unable to grasp that? Or does it taste so bad that you can’t even look at it now?
If genocide prevention was not enough reason then, why is it enough reason now?
And he also used the term “humanitarian”, as in,
“The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems.”
but now that he’s President it’s different?
@DrJohn:
DJ, my issue with what you wrote is that you’re stating that it’s hypocritical to intervene one place and not another. that to do so is, in fact, accepting genocide. Obama addressed all this in his speech. America can’t run around the globe putting out every fire, nor do many American’s think we should. All these types of decisions, going back to Barbary Wars, have always weighed both the scale of the atrocity and our national interests. It’s a sad and ugly truth, but that’s what you have to deal with when you’re President, i guess. If you disagree with this decision, that’s wonderful. Too bad you can’t articulate that disagreement without turning it into “another example of how evil Obama is”.
Tom tom… such confusion you have with your own commentary. From your original response to drj.
While you like to skim across all these points as your defense, you totally ignore the reasons that Obama was opposed to Iraq…. the bulk of it being no national interests at stake and being opposed to regime change. So ignoring Obama’s dissent to Iraq by parsing sentences is your excuse? You cannot disassociate the two when you speak of his “debatable points”.
Therefore I reminded you of Obama’s doctrine in Iraq, which is 180 degrees counter to what his doctrine is in Libya. Apparently a factoid you seem determined to ignore since it interferes with your thin defense of the genocide/humanitarian surface debate.
To the last sentence, what was that about inviting someone “to stop putting words in my mouth”? I didn’t say the Iraq no fly zone accomplished “nothing”. That’s your word, not mine. I said, verbatim:
pffffft….
But back to “your point”… such as it was. To declare that lack of support for Iraq (by Obama, or anyone else), is not the same as being supportive of genocide/humanitarianism is true only in a generic sense. It is not true when you consider the specific person – Obama – and his specific opposition of Iraq. There is no way he can claim the moral high ground for humanitarian military response in Libya – his “offical” reason while also stating it’s about regime change in multiple other venues – without it being in complete opposition to his refusal to sanction Iraq. And that goes for both humanitarian and regime change. It’s either a formula that is applicable to both, or it is applicable to none.
Is a POTUS entitled to learn and change his mind? But of course. One would hope he would change it for the better, tho. And that would come down to an argument as to which country legitimately warranted a military force for regime change, and which does not. In that case, Libya falls far short of the criteria, as even Obama’s Defense Department concurs.
@Tom:
One, his “staying on the offensive” is a mere continuation of the policy under Bush, including trying to kill high-value targets, which is one of the goals in any war, and is not attributable to the president so much as it is to the military commanders in the region.
Two, I don’t agree with increased use of drone attacks, except within the operational boundaries of the war itself. Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in the region, yet we are invading their airspace, against their will, in order to attack targets. The use of drones and their success in hitting targets is debatable. The one thing that it does ensure is that there are fewer U.S. casualties.
I don’t know if the president should get credit for something that is just a continuation of action by numerous agencies, including foreign, that was set up by the previous administration. I will give him credit for continuing it, but not for it’s success.
@Tom: Tom, I don’t think I once used the term “evil.” I think I used “hypocrite” liberally and appropriately.
Obama left no wiggle room in his condemnations of intervention while a candidate and you have not been able to show otherwise and I know you tried. When he said
“The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems.”
or
“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.”
it was pretty damned unequivocal. There was no “except here and there and/or when I deem it necessary.”
Now it’s left to the apologists to just to bridge that gap as you are attempting.
Was that not a decision he made? Could he not have discontinued the policy?
Well said. The sentence I bolded is of particular concern to me, more than the Pakistan angle.
Okay, but would you blame him if there was a failure? You can’t have it both ways. I actually come down a little in the middle, because I think it’s almost inevitable an attack could get through at some point. I don’t think the metric can be solely whether an attack succeeds, but how overall our agencies are operating to prevent such an attack and the readiness of our emergency services in the horrific case that one succeeded. In that regard, my question was perhaps not precise enough.
There’s that word parsing and narrow definition of the international enemy again. To the O’faithful, if the Ft. Hood shooter, the Christmas bomber, the Times Square bomber, and attacks on the military recruiting stations – just to name a few of the attacks or attempted attacks – do not use “al qaeda” in their name or association, then we didn’t have a terrorist attack, did we? Alert the press! Obama and his DHS are a rousing success!
It becomes more ironic that both the Christmas and Times Sq bomber were NOT stopped by Obama’s DHS, but by alert citizens. And even more ironic that Obama’s intelligence or defense leadership didn’t see the Ft. Hood shooter coming.
Pathetic.
@Tom:
Tom, some people use the term ”straw man” to stand for something other than the fallacy of that name.
A real straw man fallacy is when a debater or speaker defines his opponent’s argument in a way that is NOT his opponent’s true argument.
Then he knocks down the fake argument and proclaims himself the winner.
For example,
In Obama’s 2009 state of the union address he said, “I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.”
OK.
But WHO said that that government had NO ROLE in laying the foundation for our common prosperity?
No one did!
Congressional Republicans believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.
I have never met the Republican who wants to end all government economic policies.
Yet that was the argument Obama set up so his argument might seem reasonable in contrast.
*****
Obama gave a Feb 2009 speech for Abe Lincoln’s 200th birthday.
He used another straw-man argument when he railed against “a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government — this constant rejection of any common endeavor — cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges.”
Whose philosophy is that?
I have never met the Republican who wants to dismantle all government.
Yet that was the argument Obama set up so his argument might seem reasonable in contrast.
****
There is another when Obama said anyone who opposed his stimulus plan was ”for doing nothing.”
I never met or read one article calling for nothing to be done.
****
I could go on and on with more of these.
Karl Rove once said, “continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.”
I agree.
Obama is afraid to meet his opponents on a level playing field.
That’s why he uses opportunities when he has the floor all to himself to make up weak arguments for them then knock down those phony arguments and proclaim, ”I won!”
These are true straw man fallacies.
Nan, <blockquoteIt wouldn’t hurt Obama if his writers would ”google” him as to what he had said before on similar subject before they put new words in his mouth.
This is the technology angle. The technology is available; why do Obama’s speech and policy writers not use the available technology.
Perhaps there is competition to see who can direct US foreign policy and our military on any particular week. It must be a real boost to the ego for some political hack to be sending our fleets into action and launching a hundred million dollars worth of missiles on any given day. If some other speech writer sends the Marines from Camp Le Jeune to Lybia this week, another one will try to outdo him next week. To actually have the power of the United States within a few keyboards is an awesome power that should not be taken lightly. I am sure the speech and policy writers understand and respect the awesome power they yield.
A few weeks back, I predicted that Obama would launch another war to insure his reelection. It is common sense to start one that would be easy to control and win; unfortunately, Lybia is not easy and victory is highly questionable. It would be laughable except for the prospect of American deaths to help obama get reelected. Yes we will be landing Marines if we want Obama to save face in this debacle and we will be fighting loyalists and al Qaeda at the same time and young Marines will die and be maimed again on the shores of Tripoli.
@MataHarley:
cross-posted. Please see my comment 33. I backed off that claim a little because i believe in a free society, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop every nut out there without drastically curtailing the civil liberties of American citizens. Let’s not forget that one of the most effective ways to curtail attacks is to attack Al Queda in their recruiting efforts. This is a whole other enchilada, but it would help if certain people didn’t accuse the President of being a closet-Muslim or anti-Israeli every time he attempted to reach out to the Muslim world and assert our values are more in line with their interests than those of either Al Queda or the existing theocratic autocracies. Just a thought.
I can agree with that statement totally, while still reserving the right to question the specifics of the “outreach”. Libya falls squarely in my cross hairs on this one. The bully pulpit pressure on Mubarak, and ally in intelligence and keeping Palestine/Israel as stable as possible, is another. He has, IMO, reached out to elements containing the enemy while slapping the leadership who did provide aid to the western world on global Islamic jihad movements.
Does this make him a Muslim, sympathetic to jihad in my opinion? No. But it does make him dangerously naive, and unfit to be the CiC.
@Tom:
True, you cannot have it both ways, and certainly there would be some who would blame Obama. I don’t believe I would, unless it was shown that a change in policy is why a resultant attack occurred.
A decision to continue on policies initiated under a previous admin, and successful policies, are not enough to credit the current president with the success of the policies. I can give him credit for deciding on the continuation though, but we are just talking minor points here.
@Skookum:
And they will be dying while fighting alongside Al Qaida.
I am still trying to wrap my head around that.
I guess the main gist of the article is “why did I vote for Obama, when he’s a hypocrite?” Well, he’s also a politician, and hypocrisy generally tends to be a characteristic of governing. It’s just that he gets more liberal goals accomplished with his hypocrisy than would a conservative with theirs–for example, health care. Now I don’t doubt that all of the people on this site object to the health care bill–for one reason of another–but a the same time, assumably, neither do they care if less and less people have adequate health care and are dying as a result–as has been the trend over the years–although the majority of people on this site are also good Christians. (Now that’s what I call hypocrisy.) Instead, they focus of rhetoric like ‘smaller government’. Well let me ask you a question: “What does that really mean, and when did a conservative president actually accomplish that goal?”
Yeah… don’t suppose that massive control of both Congressional chambers had much to do with that, eh? Despite that, it still took a year and 3 months get O’healthcare thru… mostly because of a push back of their own. The GOP didn’t even need to show up for votes.
But let’s not bog down your glory days with pesky factoids and details.
Doc J, did you miss the news yesterday that Marines left Camp Lejeune for the Med. and why do you suppose we will have them off the coast of Libya? There are no more sharpshooters in the yardarms. The statement was that they will be fighting loyalists and al Qaeda, not alongside al Qaeda. Not even Obama would have that kind of temerity to ask Marines to fight alongside al Qaeda. There will be enemies, but no enemies. Purely speculation of course, but I was right on the money about a war and like most political wars, it is not going according to script and we ain’t seen nothin yet.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
You know what’s hypocritical? Saying we don’t care about people having adequate healthcare when you are pushing universal healthcare, guaranteed to degrade quality and result in more deaths. It’s also an example of projection on your part.
I remember when Slick Willie was trying to look presidential with the ineffective no fly zone and doing his best to deflect from the Lewinsky affair. There should have been a no fly zone in the Oval Office.
Wow Doc, at work this morning I went online, you had this article up and zero comments. Now I get home and you have comments all over the place. You must be doing well in the polls.
A no fly zone as the only action against gadaffy is about the same as throwing a few hundred million at the problem, without expecting results. There is no real strategy involved in implementing this no fly zone. Hittler was able operate under more bombing than would be considered PC in modern times, sure we are more strategic now with our bombs but still it took alies actually taking berlin with soldiers, to defeat the nazi military.
@Skookum: I did see it, Skook, and you were right on the money for certain. He needed a war, but this one could yet fall under the law of untoward consequences.
Interesting fact about “no fly zones”, copyed from wikipedia.
“In the United States, the phrase “no-fly zone” has no legal meaning. What most people would consider a “no-fly zone” is termed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a “Prohibited Area”. Prohibited Areas are permanent until canceled and are published in the Federal Register and at http://sua.faa.gov, and are depicted by blue hashed boundaries on aeronautical charts ”
So a no fly zone could mean troops on the ground. It would be surprised if that were not the case and CNN does not know about it.
Then again I don’t think kinetic action has any meaning ether.
Zac, like all things contractual, the devil lies in the details. The UN Resolution for the Libyan no fly zone has somewhat vague language that does establish that there is to be no flights in the designated air space, save for certain exceptions. This does not include blowing up tanks that don’t fly, or bombing political residences.
However the loophole about the tanks and residences may rest under the guise of “protecting civilians” and those respective clauses nestled within the wording:
At this time, under the current UN resolution, no ground troops are authorized since they are a foreign occupying force… tho I do believe there are some there anyway. However that “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas” can be broadly interpreted that taking out tanks “protects” civilians. Don’t know that I would consider armed rebels “civilians”, mind you. But hey… whadda I know.
The rebels, fast losing ground at this writing, are begging for more warfare on their behalf. The UN would have to do some alternations to the resolution to do that within the int’l body’s legitimacy (tho those two terms next to each other are somewhat an oxymoron). Whether they do that, or not, is something only time will tell.
@Zac: A no fly zone as the only action against gadaffy is about the same as throwing a few hundred million at the problem, without expecting results. There is no real strategy involved in implementing this no fly zone.
Too true, Zac.
I was reading how The Daily Beast indicates al Qaeda forces are gearing up to join the rebels and seize power in Libya. As the battle for the future of Libya continues, the excitement is almost palpable among Libyan-born al Qaeda fighters and other Arabs hunkered down in Pakistan’s remote and lawless tribal area.
How are the ”rebels” doing?
They are losing!
Between 6 a.m. Tuesday and 6 a.m. Wednesday, Libyan time, a period during which U.S. and European forces launched 102 air strikes, the rebel movement there suffered their worst defeats since the campaign of Western intervention began more than a week earlier.
After having made it all the to the outskirts of Sirte, Qaddafi’s hometown and the furthest west the rebels had advanced, loyalist forces quickly pushed the rebels back to the oil-rich town of Ras Lanouf, then to Brega, and now as far east as Ajdabia, a rebel stronghold.
So, what to do????
[T]he United States and France were among the nations that suggested the possibility of supplying arms to the anti-Gaddafi insurgency.
Maybe Matt Lauer was speaking from inside the loop this morning when he said:
“If there are flickers, as you say, of al Qaeda among the rebels, would it not be a sign to them or showing them that the United States has compassion and we are willing to use our military might to help all people?”
Yeah, Obama might ARM al Qaeda!
What is his other strategy?
Does he even have one?
Mr. Obama makes Carter look good.
@MataHarley: If there are more air strikes on Gaddafi’s forces coming on the heels of the rebel pleas then that will also put the lie to the US position that we are not coordinating efforts with the rebel forces.
Which I fully expect to see.
Some thoughts:
An errant bomb in an oil facility- damage to the collateral.
Joan Baez- “Where Have All The Flowers(peaceniks) Gone?” Let me guess. They’re at home washing their tights and organizing for January 2013.
Canadian General Bouchard in charge of tactics- perfect, “do no harm”.
No war for oil for Europe.
Al Qaeda are now freedom fighters.
Stay the hell outta there. Its a gong show. Save your sons and treasure.
Let them thin each other out. Canadian engineers were stabbed in the back by Muslims in Bosnia circa 1991.
Boots on the ground, you don’t really think we are relying on Libyans to be our FOs. (Forward Observers to call in air strikes and naval artillery) Our guys are on the ground sure as Hell needs air conditioning.
Al Qaeda will have something they have never had before if we win this war far them, the country with the richest sweet crude in the world. It requires the least refining of all crude and thus is more valuable than any crude in the world. Obama is about to hand over financing to fund Jihad against Israel and the US for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children. Of course it isn’t a war for oil, it is a war for Democracy and humanitarian reasons, but it will be for oil and Jihad and our troops will soon make it possible.
This is a lose lose situation for us. I’m not sure whose side Obama’s on, but we are on the losing side. If al Qaeda gains the wealth of Libya we are in trouble: if Gadaffy remains in power and starts launching his terror network we are in trouble. How could foreign policy get much worse.
Skookum it could only get worse if Obama made a speech right when Dancing With The Idol was supposed to be on.