Are we supposed to fall on our knees because Dana Milbank said it? I don’t care what Dana Milbank says. It’s still a stupid comparison. The US was not being attacked.
A mucker breaks out in a crowded mall with a machete. You are certain he means to play chop-socky for real. Youi have a gun, and a cell phone. You call the police?
“Hello? I’d like permission to shoot this guy. Yes, I’ll hold…”
Well then, this can only mean one thing: you Conservatives are not the Silent Majority, you’re just a a very passive mlinority, if you couldnt gather enough energy to go demo for your beliefs. So will you all shut the fuck up and let the real American people have their way?
I don’t know what you are talking about. Fortunately, I don’t think it matters.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but you say that about everything. One of these days you might even be right. But not today.
The “narrative” that I’m seeing in the media (certainly in the UK and somewhat in the US) seems to be that we want to support the plucky rebels in their fight for freedom, democracy and pie against the nasty dictator G/Q/Kaddhafi who has oppressed them for the last four decades. But the nasty dictator is using planes to massacre the civilian protesters so we are going in there to “even things out” by removing the air threat, freeing up the rebels to win the ground war and sweep in a Golden Era of something or other. Kind of like the French providing naval support in the American War of Independence. Ish.
That this narrative conveniently ignores minor things like the aforementioned waffling of the Arab League about our role or what happens if the rebels start losing also seems to be something that the man on the street is not thinking too hard about, in large part because once you do think about it it gets very messy and unpleasant and we like a Hollywood-style story. I’m half-expecting people to demand that Lou Gossett Jr fly in and take care of the situation.
I mention this only because it’s a narrative that liberals buy into as well as conservatives. Afghanistan did have some left-wing support for those who accepted the connection between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, while very few on the left were convinced by the scaremongering leading up to Iraq. But everyone can see the Libyans on TV who are, in their own words, fighting for freedom and naturally we want them to succeed. That we’ve managed to trick ourselves - again - into thinking that this will be a “clean” war with no casualties on our side is just part of being human.
Note, by the way, that the government in the UK is dominated by the Conservatives (with the Lib Dems in ineffectual coalition) and yet the same middle-class lefties who hate David Cameron and opposed Iraq are cheering this one on (as evidenced by the audience at last week’s 10 O’Clock Show Live, prompting an “Oh really?” from David Mitchell). It’s not that Our Guy is doing it; it’s that we like this movie and hope it has a happy ending.
Some differences between Iraq and Libya:
- Obama didn’t send his Secretary of State to lie to the UN as a justification for war
- Obama didn’t tell his National Security Adviser to speak ominously of mushroom clouds
- Obama isn’t preparing for an invasion followed by an inept and bungled occupation
Lobbing missiles at Libya hasn’t historically been a losing presidential move, there isn’t a lot of love for Khadafy anywhere. Most people would like to see him go and wish the rebels the best of luck.
Personally, I think Khadafy’s side prevails in the end and we’ll be out a few hundred missiles and a few aircraft. The rebels seem to be The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. They may be great at firing guns in the air for the camera but they’ll need more help than air support to prevail. It’s a longshot bet for us, and if it pays off great and if not, then at least we aren’t stuck there.
If Bush had done this, I wouldn’t be terribly upset nor would I be overly optimistic. Which is exactly how I feel about Obama’s handling of it.
You whine about protests against the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion and the lack of backlash at Obama when he does “the same thing” against Lybia. If you Conservatives are too lazy to manifest yourselves against this latest one, you’re not the Silent Majority, you’re just the Passive Minority. Like old people you’re just blocking the door without purpose nor aim but for the sake of grumbling.
Didnt know I had to provide explanations for the grey matter deficients.
I can’t speak for Shodan, but I personally would have no reason to protest against Obama’s moves here, because I support them.
As I understand the complaint Shodan makes, it’s not about Obama’s actions, but about the lack of outcry from liberals over Obama’s actions, when those same liberals protested vociferously over similar actions taken by Bush.
So your observation that conservatives should “manifest themselves” utterly misses the point.
In contrast, BobLibDem (to pick one example) offers the argument that Bush’s actions then and Obama’s actions now are meaningfully distinguishable. If true, that rebuts the implied premise of the thread.
In another thread, Frank excoriates Obama’s actions, which rebuts the explicit premise of the thread.
I believe Bush’s actions then and Obama’s now are quite distinguishable. Lobbing missiles and enforcing no fly zones are a far cry from invasions and bungled occupations.
I was against Iraq and Afghanistan even though I was a conservative.
I’m against getting involved in Libya even though I am a liberal.
Dunno what this all proves, but there it is.
Clearly, you are simply a contrarian. 
FWIW, I believe they are distinguishable too, although not for any reasons you’ve advanced. But in the other major thread on this issue, Shayna has advanced some pretty compelling arguments for treating the two differently.
I maybe, just maybe, have been told that before! 
I am disappointed. The correct response was “No I’m not.”
Obama had three weeks to ask Congress to do something. He didn’t. The war powers act is unconstitutional. Bush didn’t ask for a declaration of war, but at least he asked Congress for the authority to use farce, er force. This was an entirely optional action.
Success and failure are not the difference when starting the action. We still don’t know if any of these two and a half wars are going to be favorable to the US. So far they are not and have only bankrupted us.
Two and a half? How about two and one hundredth? The scopes of the involvement in Libya and Iraq are what distinguish them, not the outcomes.
Bush’s exit strategy in Iraq: Accept perpetual adulation of the world.
Obama’s exit strategy in Libya: Stop shooting missiles and flying planes.
You make it sound like all the US has done and will do is issue statements. We have fired about 120 missiles at minimum and must trust the Obama administration for information on the rest.
Is that his exit strategy, because Obama has very clearly stated he wants Gadhafi gone. That’s further than the UN resolution. While we can exit anyway we like, it wouldn’t reach his stated goal.
The President’s entitled to the presumption of truthfulness. If you believe the administration has lied, it’s up to you to provide evidence.
The President is not entitled to a presumption of truthfulness that I am aware of. I remember that was one of Bush’s claims about WMD and Johnson’s about the Gulf of Tonkin. And Nixon’s about not being a crook. It seems to me that a presumption of truthfulness accorded to the office of President is bold faced question begging.
I don’t like Quadaffi one bit and if he is killed I will shed no tears and might even celebrate. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and it is explicit that only the Congress may declare war.
As for Obama’s personal truthfulness, he said he would close down Guantanmo, he has not. He said he would end the Iraq conflict, he has not. He said he would walk the line with labor, he has not.
Obama is a full fledged liar. He’s better at it than W or Nixon or even Johnson, but if it looks like a liar, walks like a liar and quacks like a liar, then it’s a liar.