NYT: Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility


Of course they are talking about Libya, not Afghanistan….

…Each new day brings another step through the looking glass on Libya, and today it was the NYT’s turn. First Obama out-Bushed Bush, then Hillary started questioning the patriotism of war opponents, and now we’ve got the flagship paper of the liberal intelligentsia wondering why anyone would jeopardize American military credibility by pulling the plug before victory’s been declared. Really.

Am I awake?

One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.

They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow…

We also believe Congress has an important role to play in this debate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to vote on the Kerry-McCain measure next week. The majority leader, Harry Reid, has said he has the votes in the Senate. Thankfully, some Senate Republicans also seem to understand the importance of the United States following through on its national security commitments.

…Despite the fact that “days, not weeks” has turned into months; despite the fact that NATO’s mission has lurched from one goal to another; despite the fact that Obama ignored his own lawyers when they suggested that the war was illegal; despite unusual bipartisan opposition in Congress; despite periodic reports of an ominous Islamist strain within the rebel ranks; and despite the fact that some NATO commanders are now suggesting that ground troops might be needed in the aftermath of Qaddafi’s fall to keep the peace, the number of Democrats who approve of the war has actually increased since it started. Who knows? If it drags on through the end of the year, he might end up with 60 percent approval from his base.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I call BS.

“A new study by U-M’s Michael Heaney and colleague Fabio Rojas of Indiana University shows that the antiwar movement in the United States demobilized as Democrats took over Congress and the White House.”


“Democrats and other liberal supporters of the establishment are not opposed to mass murder and wanton slaughter by the state – they merely oppose it when Republicans do it. “

More Here:

We need to remember this, and throw it back in the face of Democrats in the future when they jump on the anti-war bandwagon. The MSM has little anti-war response to warmongering by Obama. The near daily body counts provided when Bush was in office have turned to crickets for Obama.


If he insists to keep up his military actions in full force, impeachement processes might happen…


70 some Democrats are siding with the Republicans in this matter over Libya…