Patterico's Pontifications

3/21/2011

On Libyan Schadenfreude… Please Stop (Update: Hotairalanche! And Instalanche!)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:29 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Hotairalanche!  Joking aside, thanks to Hot Air for the link.  Please enjoy the main site, and you might also be interested in this post arguing that as it stands now, the war in Libya is illegal.

Update (II): Instalanche!  Thanks!  And for the record, Glenn, I totally understand the desire, even if I am trying (and maybe failing some) to resist the temptation.

——————————

So over the weekend our military swung into action against Libya and we have bombed a few spots.  It’s full on war.

And it’s quite tempting to then start pointing out the contradiction between supporting this action and opposing the war in Iraq.  For instance, I wrote this almost a month ago:

On the other hand our military is preparing options for Obama.  Which raises the question…  Why?  I mean assuming we don’t have Americans being taken hostages or anything like that, then, why?  Would some liberal who claimed that it was wrong to intervene in Iraq explain why this is different?  Why is it wrong to intervene to topple a dictator in Iraq, but okay in Libya?  And what about the phrase, “no blood for oil?”  Ring any bells?

Of course I am being facetious.  I have consistently believed that it is actually okay to expend our military resources “merely” for human rights.  It says something about the decency and honor of this country that most sane people are willing to do that now and then.  But if our planes impose a no-fly zone, or what have you, unless the liberals take to streets in protest, it will prove that their opposition to the Iraq war was always about politics and not principle.

And indeed, more than a few people are pointing today the contradiction between Obama’s position on the Iraq War and this one.

And there’s nothing logically invalid about this.  From the beginning, even when talking to the club for dictators known as the U.N., President Bush (II) depicted the impending war with Iraq as being at least in part about liberation.  And today the only justification offered is that Libya is committing atrocities.  If that justifies military action in Libya, how does it not in Iraq?  And of course there is a far more compelling argument that if Qdaffy* survives this, we can expect him to disavow every agreement with the west, including the one forswearing WMDs.  But then again, the argument that even if Qdaffy doesn’t currently have WMDs, he might get them in the future as a justification for war…  would be very hypocritical if offered by an opponent of the Iraq War.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question.  Is he right, right now?  Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?  If he is, then we have, to a degree, a patriotic duty to put those criticisms aside.  Maybe the President is too small to admit it, but either 1) he was full of it when opposing the Iraq War, or 2) he has changed his mind.  And if you think he is making the right decision, we shouldn’t make it too difficult, politically, to do the right thing, or else he might stop doing the right thing.  In other words, please lay off.

And I say that having done exactly the same thing in that quote above.  I shouldn’t have and I won’t be doing it now.  Yes, yes, we  watched the left unfairly and dishonestly malign the Iraq War, giving our enemies aid and comfort as we fought that war.  Hell, we have watched our media give out enemy propaganda that has actually led terrorists to kill our troops.  The temptation to turn the screws on them is powerful.  But sometimes patriotism requires us to suck it up and/or bite our tongues.

Of course, the next time the left complains about the Iraq War, we can bring this up.  But we didn’t need this Libyan no-fly zone to prove the left was (mostly) hypocritical and likely insincere in their opposition to this war.  We could have easily cited the actions we took in the former Yugoslavia to make that point.

And that is not to say that there is nothing to criticize, here, or that you should withhold those criticisms of the current war.  For instance, am I the only person who finds it creepy that the President seemed to have no desire to go to war until the U.N. passed its resolution?  The implication that we not only need their permission, but we are positively their attack dog is bad enough, but couldn’t we have at least been the leader of the pack instead of a beta male?  And of course I question the President’s decision to go to war without Congressional approval.  And no, I don’t think the War Powers Act really counts.

(Update: Discussion of the Constitutional issue, here.)

But I had lectured the left throughout the Iraq War that criticism has to be responsible, with an eye toward the safety of our soldiers and the success of the mission.  That means going forward 1) we have to be careful not to report enemy propaganda as gospel truth, and 2) only serious substantive objections to this war should be raised.  We should not be using this war to score points or to vindicate an honorable war (Iraq) that had been unfairly maligned.  We owe our military men and women that much.

—————————-

Oh and off-topic, but “Operation Odyssey Dawn“?  Really?  Shouldn’t the name of the war sound at least mildly badass?

—————————-

* I have resolved from now on to call Libya’s leader Qdaffy, which I think originated with Iowahawk’s tweets.  It seems about as valid a spelling as any other the others, right?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

132 Comments

  1. I’ll support zero on this, or not, depending. Like, does he have a plan for when the shooting is mostly over? Will he defend the museums? What if somebody is found who denies there were atrocities?
    But mostly I’ll be asking my lib acquaintances various pointed questions, the general theme of which is you’re predictably a hypocritical liar.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey (59fa91) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:35 am

  2. The same people, as far as can be recalled, who opposed Reagan’s attack on Kadaffi, who opposed Gulf War 1, even after the UN resolution, who ignored the 17 resolutions leading up to the Iraq War, who dismissed the AUMF, now they can deploy
    troops without debate. I agree with the goal, I’m kind of wary, about the means, those ‘Libyan freedom fighters’ have more checkered flags then
    NASCAR.

    Comment by narciso (a3a9aa) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:40 am

  3. I disagree Pat.

    After 8 years of Bush bashing and two years of Palin bashing, and much of it coming from Obama,
    I am a little shocked and quite tired of a “lets support the President”, especially since he’s just spent the last couple of days in Rio, between golf games, while Biden has been making the fund raising circuit.

    No, it simply isn’t enough to keep quiet and knuckle under. Obama ran specifically against the Bush policies he is now implementing, badly by being two weeks late.

    His actions contradict his words, only it is costing us three and four times as much.

    Obama’s serial apology tours, his condemnation of the America’s actions, his accusations of racism as though if he were only white the Tea Party would disappear, the MSMs uncritical PR support, the Obamacare waivers granted to Unions and businesses that supported Obmamcare.

    No. Obama has gone to war in Lybia for unspecified goals (it isn’t, for example, to effect regime change by getting rid of Qdaffi*), with no exit strategy, and goes directly against his criticisms of the Iraq war. His previous actions, and those of his supporters preclude all of that.

    And what are Obama’s real reasons for going to war? It is because he doesn’t want to look bad. He doesn’t want to look like a wimp, or ineffectual, or wrong.

    In other words, he has gone to war to protect his ego. Yeah, lets support a President who does that!

    Comment by Jack (f9fe53) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:01 am

  4. And what about Obama’s goal to make sure the world loves the U.S. Vladimir Putin compared our military action in Libya to medieval calls for crusades and I don’t think he is being complementary. When the quagmire comes, watch the media focus on Obama’s good intentions. Or maybe the media will blame Hillary.

    Comment by Arizona Bob (911aa5) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:04 am

  5. No, Arizona Bob — you missed the briefing. Don’t you realize it is ALWAYS and FOREVER “Bush’s fault”.

    Spending? Bush’s fault.
    War? Bush’s fault.
    People’s bad opinion of America? Bush’s fault.
    The gulf oil spill? Bush’s fault.
    My ingrown toenail? Bush’s fault.

    If Libya goes badly — then it, too, will be Bush’s fault. Somehow.

    And how can it not go badly, with no specified goal or strategy (“Qdaffy must not be allowed to kill his own people” — uh…ok. What does that MEAN exactly? Regime change? Containment? For how long? And why exactly does a no-fly zone require bombing tanks? And if Qdaffy offers and abides by a cease fire…then what?)

    Even if there IS regime change, apparently we’ve got the Muslim Brotherhood waiting in the wings to take over “democratically”. How lovely.

    Bush’s fault.

    Comment by BobInFL (bae5a3) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:09 am

  6. Aaron,

    I have not seen the President make his case for military intervention in Libya. Nor have I seen the President outline what he hopes to achieve and how he plans on achieving it. I have seen him claim that this intervention will be measured in days not weeks, and see no reason not to hold him to that.

    Comment by Rodney G. Graves (f12db5) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:10 am

  7. “his accusations of racism as though if he were only white the Tea Party would disappear”

    – I like that, Jack. Unfortunately the rest of your post seems to indicate that you didn’t really ‘get’ Aaron’s point.

    Comment by Icy Texan (986bd1) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:12 am

  8. And another thing. Obama’s actions are typical of a bureaucrat: More concerned about avoiding blame than taking responsibility, requiring committees to provide cover.

    Obama not ready to lead? When the 11:00am call came, he was giving his picks for the final four. When the 3:00pm call came, he was on the golf course. When the 11:00pm call came, he was at a party. When the 3:00 am call came, he was in Rio.

    But lets support this guy.

    Comment by Jack (f9fe53) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:12 am

  9. “Yes, yes, we watched the left unfairly and dishonestly malign the Iraq War, giving our enemies aid and comfort as we fought that war. Hell, we have watched our media give out enemy propaganda that has actually led terrorists to kill our troops. The temptation to turn the screws on them is powerful. But sometimes patriotism requires us to suck it up and/or bite our tongues.”

    I agree 100%. They’re the scum of the earth (including the double-dealing, backstabbing traitor currently residing in the White House), but I support destroying the government of K-daffy, even though it is tempting to think about giving the leftscum a taste of their own medicine .

    We should have wiped the Libyans out the minute we found out that they were aiding terrorists who were killing Americans over two decades ago. It’s never too late to make up for past mistakes, however, and it doesn’t really matter what motivates a piece of crap, like Obambi, as long as the job gets done.

    As for using our armed forces to protect Muslim rebel trash from Muslim dictator trash…screw that. I wouldn’t lift a finger to help any of them, and wish the various Muslims factions success in killing each other.

    Our military should be used to protect and further the interests of America and our allies, not the interests of foreign Jew-hating, America-hating followers of the Child-molester “prophet”, who aren’t now, never have been, and aren’t ever going to be, our dear pals.

    Killing K-daffy and his henchmen is in America’s best interest, so I say go for it, but piss on that “let’s help the rebels nonsense”. We ought to bomb them too.

    Of course, I hope everyone knows that Obambi, in addition to his other virtues, is an incompetent ass, and will most likely totally bungle the job, but at least we’ll have the satisfaction of slaughtering some of our enemies as he bumbles his way along, and that’s probably the most we can expect as long as treasonous liberal dolts are running the show in Washington.

    Comment by Dave Surls (bfc371) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:15 am

  10. It’s infuriating, because they act as if they don’t recall why we ultimately had to go after half measures, in 1990,1994,1996, 1998, to Iraq. THey may not know, they may not care.

    Comment by narciso (a3a9aa) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:23 am

  11. Jack

    well, feel free to disagree, but let me point out that I wrote that, not patrick.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:24 am

  12. Everybody in The Odyssey was killed but Odysseus, right? Does that make the name bad ass enough?

    It’s ridiculous we get drawn into every damn civil war on the globe. For once why is this our responsbility? Where’s it end? Let’s go into NK. And Bahrain. And Yemen. And Ivory Coast. And Cuba. And Venezuala. They’re all criminals bastards who kill their people too, aren’t they?

    And it’s even more ridiculous that every single time, regardless of whether it’s a Democrat or Republican in the WH, we do it half-heartedly and half-assed.

    Comment by JEA (c03c68) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:43 am

  13. if we’re not spending all these monies in Libya for to explicitly promote democracy, something which our cowardly and deeply silly president would never countenance, it all adds up to not much more than a spot of cruise missile masturbation.

    Bomb Libya or not you silly broke-ass Americans, if only for to entertain “Don” on CNN. But please to not pretend this is “one for the history books” or any of that nonsense. Y’all are just mucking about kissing French ass and having a capricious lark pressing buttons for to make the rockets red glarey glarey glare and all.

    Whatever floats your boat.

    Comment by happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:48 am

  14. I really enjoying throwing the anti-Obama complaints of Nader, Michael Moore, et al. back in the faces of my Obama supporting friends. These are the people they kept bringing up when the complaints were against George W. Bush, and now those people are sticking to their guns and complaining about Obama’s new war…mostly.

    Comment by Xmas (a633e2) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:48 am

  15. It would be immensely satisfying to bring slow painful death to Qadaffi, but I’m not sure why the USA has to do it, especially since it seems the Europeans are seriously engaged. Everything the USA does now is done with Chinese loans. Those Tomahawks cost over $1M apiece.

    This isn’t about BHO’s leadership or manhood or self-contradictions. It’s about prudence in a time when we are hamstrung by alarming debt.

    Bless and keep safe our soldiers on their mission.

    Comment by gp (72be5d) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:53 am

  16. Aaron, thank you for the correction and my apologies to Patterico. My mistake.

    And just to keep the thread going, I would like to contrast my acknowledgment of error, and apology, with the lack of such acknowledgment (re: Lybia war justifications vs. Iraq war justifications) by President Obama, the Democratic Party, and the MSM.

    But, by all means, lets support them.

    Comment by Jack (f9fe53) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:01 am

  17. I’d add that while your cowardly president expends American treasure for to advance french interests in North Africa, the same french who did so so much to undermine your efforts in Iraq, your erstwhile Japanese allies are suffering every bit as much and really quite a lot more than the Libyans.

    Comment by happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:08 am

  18. I will always support the president, no matter who he is in a time of war to protect the national security of this country but I cannot get my mind around what is taking place in Libya.
    It seems that the entire region is up in arms and Libya seems to be in a state of civil war.
    I see zero national interest, the loss of life there is nauseating but that does not qualify for an act of war,if it did then we would be bombing 20 other countries in that region alone.
    I am a simple man who lives on logic and common sense, in using both, I see no reason for us to be attacking Libya.I not only do not support this action but I’m dead set against it.
    If that makes me a bad American then please change my mind in pointing out the end game to this engagement, please list the best possible outcomes if Qadaffi stays in power or if he leaves/dies and his replacement and how that person would play out in benefiting our national interest.

    Comment by justavoter (b003e1) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:10 am

  19. What is especially disappointing is that if this had been Bush instead of Obama, we could probably have avoided doing most of this. Obama failed through his indecision on this (and nearly everything else) to cash in on “the threat” of the use of force. He has taken the threat of the use of force off the table as a first move more than once, so now that threat was gone.
    Bush got Libya to drop their nuclear program based entirely on the thread that Bush was crazy enough to use force. Our clone of Tuvok has no military Arab “street cred.”

    Comment by Rodan (03e5c2) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:10 am

  20. Obama elected to merely bomb. There is no intention of putting troops on the ground. He put forth a low risk approach. Nonetheless, he should have asked Congress for authorization. The fact that he didn’t do even the basic groundwork that Bush did shows how careless and lawless Obama is.

    Comment by THWLS (ea4bfa) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:14 am

  21. jack, no biggie on thinking patrick wrote this. we are all about 15 IQ points dumber in the morning, with or without caffiene.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:21 am

  22. “Odyssey Dawn” sounds like a disco band…

    Comment by Bigfoot (8096f2) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:23 am

  23. it sounds like a eurovision contestant

    Comment by happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:25 am

  24. I plan to say as little about Libya as possible because I think it will turn out badly for Obama. I don’t think this will force Gadaffi out. It is too late. The Arab League senses this and that is why they turned on Obama in 24 hours.

    The similarity to Clinton’s use of the military is startling.

    Comment by Mike K (8f3f19) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:26 am

  25. mike k.

    agreed, it is very clintonian. its fire a cruise missile up a camel’s butt and hope something good happens.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:32 am

  26. “Odyssey Dawn…what’s that flower you have on…”

    As for the schadenfreude angle, I’m content to look at Bambi and his libtard sycophants with one raised eyebrow, and leave it at that.

    Comment by Darth Venomous (c8614a) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:35 am

  27. Odyssey Dawn. I gave her a twenty. She said she was only doing the stripping to pay for tuition.

    Comment by Mitch (e40959) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:36 am

  28. I take satisfaction from the fact that given the choice, Obama would much rather be spending the money on ACORN. Screw that. Go America!

    Comment by daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:38 am

  29. I seem not to be the only one who thinks it is too late.

    Comment by Mike K (8f3f19) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:38 am

  30. mike

    well, i am definitely skeptical that we can stop gdaffy’s march, now, but let’s hope we were wrong. we may have squandered a historic opportunity, here.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:40 am

  31. squandering is what America does best anymore

    Comment by happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:41 am

  32. Besides the fact that we can’t afford to be in another way (a sad result of going on 3 years of trillion dollar deficits), what exactly are our national interests in Libya?

    What do we know about the rebels? Are they natural enthusiasts committed to limited government?

    Or more likely, are they Islamists, who once they take power, will oppose the U.S. at every turn?

    I don’t even think this administration knows.

    Add to that, Qaddafi has been a non-player since Reagan castrated him in 1988.

    So basically, we will spend billions to bring to power an Islamist government in Libya.

    What a brilliant policy.

    Comment by grumpyguy (ddfc2e) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:48 am

  33. The Washington Times editorial page argues that by the organization’s own standards, the U.N. resolution authorizing use of force is illegal because it deals entirely with what is an internal matter of the Libyan people.

    Now I’m not one to defer to the prerogatives of a corrupt and mostly useless organization like the United Nations, but I find it interesting that all the liberals who channel their inner badass when a Democrat is in the White House are so silent on this issue. Is the WashTimes editorial board wrong on this matter?

    Comment by JVW (615582) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:55 am

  34. There are a number of things that make this quite different from the Iraq invasion.

    Bush did not have a mandate to invade Iraq. As a result, the War in Iraq was viewed (rightly or wrongly) as an act of imperial aggression, damaging U.S. credibility — or so it could be argued.

    By contrast, with the action against Libya, one cannot say that the United States is acting as the “world’s policeman”. The UN Security Council approval makes it clear that the US is merely policing with the world, not on its own. Especially important to consider: The attacks on Libya not only have UN approval, but that of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In other words, there is an ACTUAL coalition of countries backing this, not an American led invasion force with a few countries tacked on (as in Iraq).

    Another difference between the current conflict and Iraq is that Obama isn’t giving 90 different reasons for attacking Libya, some of which are dubious (WMD). Put another way, the US is attacking without its credibility intact.

    Also: With Iraq, Saddam’s crimes were mostly confined to the past, so when we invaded, it begged the question, “Why NOW?”. With Libya, we have Qdaffy actually saying what he is about to do to his own people (“cleanse Libya house to house”). We’re responding to a specific explicit threat to the populace, not some vague “Well, he’s a bad guy cuz he’s done stuff before” justification.

    But perhaps the biggest difference between Iraq (then) and Libya (now) is that the former had no viable opposition movement, while the latter boasts an active and well-armed rebel force. We’re not invading (where are the ground troops, y’all), but providing support to an uprising.

    Any or all of these factors are relevant in why someone might think one way about the wisdom of invading Iraq, and another way about the wisdom of invading Libya.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:58 am

  35. “I see zero national interest…”

    Look again…

    “Pan Am Flight 73, a Pan American World Airways Boeing 747-121, was hijacked on September 5, 1986, while on the ground at Karachi, Pakistan, by four armed men of the Abu Nidal Organization. The aircraft, with 360 on board, had just arrived from Sahar International Airport in Bombay, India and was preparing to depart Jinnah International Airport in Karachi for Frankfurt Airport in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany, ultimately continuing on to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, United States.[1]”

    “At least 20 of the passengers were killed during the hijacking, of which 13 were from India and the rest were from United States, Pakistan and Mexico….”

    “…Libya has been accused of sponsoring the hijacking, as well as carrying out the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 and UTA Flight 772 in 1989. In 1991, a press briefing for an indictment by the U.S. Justice Department over Pan Am 103 said that “Libya provided financial and logistic support to the Abu Nidal Organization hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan” and that “the Libyan People’s Bureau in Islamabad assisted at least one of the hijackers by providing him with travel documentation.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_73

    That’s one of many reasons why we have an interest in K-daffy and the government of Libya.

    We should have killed K-daffy and wiped Libya off the face of the planet decades ago.

    We have only one real national interest and that’s protecting the lives of American citizens. When foreign governments help terrorists kill Americans, that ought to mean war, and I mean war to the knife. No deals, no negotiations and no mercy for the guys who did it or anyone who helped them do it.

    Comment by Dave Surls (bfc371) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:07 am

  36. Kman, I call B.S. on your attempt to differentiate the action in Iraq with the action in Libya. I commented yesterday that you would have a hard time convincing a lot of your side of your argument. The Arab League is already bellyaching about alleged civilian casualties, so their support (as expected) was a meter wide but a millimeter deep. The only remaining difference between the respective coalitions is that with Iraq the French were out and the Aussies were in, and in this one it is vice-versa.

    One thing that Operation Iraqi Freedom had going for it is that our coalition was committed to helping foster a democratic government in Iraq. Whether you think it was a good idea or not, you can’t argue that we have spent valuable lives and treasure to do so. What is our plan for Libya? Do we go back to the expensive and controversial task of nation-building, or do we just say, “There, the country is now yours” to the Libyan people and hope that radical Islamists don’t fill the power vacuum?

    Comment by JVW (615582) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:13 am

  37. Contra Kman, “the biggest difference[s] between Iraq (then) and Libya (now)” are that then, the USA populace was still freshly outraged over 9-11 and the anthrax attack; then, we had enormous confidence in our military and economic strength; and then, we debated the Iraq invasion for a good year before going in (so much for the “rush to war” argument.)

    Now, the anger over 9-11 has largely dissipated. Now, we realize that the economic strength we thought we enjoyed in the first years of the 21st century was actually built upon an enormous credit bubble. Now, we have attacked Libya swiftly with little debate.

    Comment by gp (72be5d) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:14 am

  38. So Aaron, what is the count? Posts by Patterico followed by posts by stalkerboi, compared to posts by you followed by your not-so-secret admirer?

    Comment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:19 am

  39. “Also: With Iraq, Saddam’s crimes were mostly confined to the past”

    Kman – You are a nutter.

    Comment by daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:21 am

  40. “There are a number of things that make this quite different from the Iraq invasion.”

    True. For one thing President Bush went to Congress before he escalated our ongoing military operations against Iraq.

    Obambi, OTOH, prefers to act like a dictator, initiating military operations against Libya entirely on his sayso, without so much as a by-your-leave from the represenatives of the people.

    Comment by Dave Surls (bfc371) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:42 am

  41. While I don’t necessarily believe it is the time to point out every last piece of hypocritical evidence that we now have on the Left where war is concerned, I do believe that we have every right to be outspoken right now about the Libyan War.

    In Iraq, we, at least, had a President who took time and effort with UN resolutions, informing Congress, getting Congressional approval, informing American citizens….then, and only then, did we engage in war with Iraq.

    In this instance with Libya, we have Prez Obama and SOS Hillary against action under a week ago, and then by Saturday we are bombing and shooting missiles at Libya. Why? What is the goal? What is the mission given to our military? Why now? Why not 3 weeks ago or two weeks from now? Who are the rebels? Why are we propping them up? Why aren’t we using this policy in Iran, Syria, Bahrain? Why didn’t we use it in Egypt, Tunisia?

    We, and Congress, have a right to understand what is going on. And, frankly, it is not clear what we are doing in Libya.

    Obama is out of the country yucking it up in Brazil while he starts a war that he says is for humanitarian efforts only. Then why are we bombing Qaddafi’s residential compound?
    Did Obama simply wait for the UN to agree and then he agreed to let them use our military to achieve the goal? Or did Obama decide this is in America’s interest? How did we get to this point?

    Without a clear goal given to the American people, I believe that Obama is purposefully giving us vague ideas as to the mission so that as we progress he can call this action a “success” no matter what happens. It is his MO to claim after the fact that whatever happened was what he “clearly” stated as his goal.

    Obama has proven himself a liar and opportunist. I think this effort is no different….and he is doing it at the potential expense of military lives.

    I’m not giving Obama a pass on Libya…even if I want to see Qaddafi gone. Too much history with Obama and too little information given to the American people.

    Comment by Sharp Right Turn (9cec11) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:47 am

  42. Qaddafi is evil but so are the people trying to overthrow him.

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:49 am

  43. Does K-Man write his talking points down on little sticky notes first or just crib them whole and throw in the “first…” and maybe an adverb or two to dress up the final product?

    Comment by SPC Jack Klompus (5b1d95) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:58 am

  44. Kman

    > Bush did not have a mandate to invade Iraq.

    So you believe the UN should decide when and if we should use force. Thank you for verifying that.

    > By contrast, with the action against Libya, one cannot say that the United States is acting as the “world’s policeman”.

    Oh yes we are. We’re just not the police captain, but a regular beat cop, following the orders of our superiors on this, as apparently you like it.

    > Another difference between the current conflict and Iraq is that Obama isn’t giving 90 different reasons

    Bush didn’t either. He gave three. But apparently you believe that more justification for attacking an enemy is a bad thing.

    > Saddam’s crimes were mostly confined to the past

    Right, the “what have you done to them lately” theory of justification, where apparently all bad acts are on a very strict statute of limitations.

    > that the former had no viable opposition movement

    Because saddam killed them.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:08 am

  45. Kman

    Btw, how hypocritical is this line:

    > the War in Iraq was viewed (rightly or wrongly) as an act of imperial aggression

    part of the reason why it was viewed as such was because… YOUR SIDE CONSTANTLY SHOUTED THAT IT WAS. your side lies about what the war was about and then has the nerve to cite the fact that some people believed what your side said as proof that we shouldn’t have gone in.

    how many years did your side say that we were there to steal their oil. well, we never did, now did we? so where is the apologies for their treasonous lies?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:11 am

  46. Or they were in exile, in London (Chalabi, Allawi
    Jaafari) Kurdistan (Barzani, Talabani) or Syria
    (Al Amaliki), now the Libyan coalition includes figures who were oppressing the people, like Jalil
    and co, just a month ago,

    Comment by narciso (a3a9aa) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:13 am

  47. “Does K-Man write his talking points down on little sticky notes first…”

    Beats me.

    But then again, I have little interest in the quaint rituals employed by pathological liars and left wing halfwits like K-mart.

    Comment by Dave Surls (bfc371) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:13 am

  48. We are bombing Libya because the Arab League wants us to do so. Better we consult with the Nationl Hockey League or the Human League.
    The would bother be more supportive. Already the Arabs are abcking away from us.

    Again the Constituion requires Congressional approval. I think Bush got carried away in both wars, but at least he put it to a Congressional vote. Consulting with old fools like McSame and Grahmnesty is not a Congressional vote(and parantheically Mccain every day makes clear why he might have been an even worse president than Obama; his overarching core philosophy of governance is nonexistent). And Obma’s own critique of Iraq during his campaign was that such action requires a Congressional vote to go forward. But heck, there are beaches and gold course The One just has to visit with the Mrs. on our dime; Congress Shmongress.

    This war is as insane as Iraq and Afghanistan have become. We would help another sharia kleptocracy to take root in the Middle East. We have learned NOTHING.

    Comment by Bugg (9e308e) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:32 am

  49. President Obama, now that we’re firing Tomahawk missiles at Libya, what are you going to do next?

    Dude, I’m going to Rio!

    Comment by daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:13 am

  50. I have absolutely no interest in schadenfruede, I just know that I am extremely upset that we have entered into this war…no good will come fom our involvement, we are one friendly-fire incident away from owning ALL of it. I was ready to give the president some grudging props for staying out of the mess, I wish he had stood firm. I just pray for our military, more than ever.

    Comment by Ellen (a13e9f) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:14 am

  51. What in the world are we doing in Libya? One hundred and twelve Cruise Missiles? What’s next?

    This attack on Libya and our involvement in the Libyan civil ware can be seen as nothing other than blatant interference in the internal affairs of Libya. And that is contrary to the charter of the United Nations and most established international law. Look it up.

    There is simply no longer any such notion as the “rule of law.” It is done as far as I can tell.

    We need to get all these clowns out of office and replace them with people who have read and understand the constitution of the United States.

    They are supposed swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution. But, they obviously can’t do so if they don’t know what the constitution is!

    Comment by WarEagle (08c61f) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:27 am

  52. In theory, I completely agree with this post. All Americans should put our nation’s interests above political concerns. However, that won’t work unless the leaders of both parties are willing to put the nation’s interests first, and I don’t see that in many Democratic leaders today. Specifically, Americans want their presidents to be humble and very serious about taking America to war. President Obama seems to be failing on both counts.

    Comment by DRJ (fdd243) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:29 am

  53. “Shouldn’t the name of the war sound at least mildly badass?”

    By preference, yes, but the space of code names that sound badass is pretty well exhausted.

    Back in WW II, we could have have TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE, OVERLORD, COBRA, DRAGOON, FIREBRAND, GRENADE, LUMBERJACK, THUNDERCLAP, FLASHPOINT, TIDAL WAVE, ANVIL, SLEDGEHAMMER, TORNADO, TYPHOON, WATCHTOWER, FLINTLOCK, ICEBERG… (The British had BATTLEAXE, CRUSADER, HARPOON, PANTHER, PLUNDER, and MENACE.)

    But we also had Operation TOENAILS (the invasion of New Georgia in the Solomon Islands). Also BLISSFUL, CHERRYBLOSSOM, SATIN, and SLAPSTICK.
    (SLAPSTICK actually sounds tough, but the meaning is much less so…)

    “Fighting” words like “EAGLE”, “FALCON”, and “TIGER” have been used and reused, till they have become clichéd.

    ODYSSEY DAWN is not bad, and it’s at least original.

    Comment by Rich Rostrom (b93deb) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:34 am

  54. I was reading about Operation Mincemeat in Montagu’s The Man Who Never Was, and it turns out the British had a list which they cycled through. Are we making all of ours up fresh these days?

    Comment by Fritz (ac48cc) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:49 am

  55. I particularly love this sentence from the First Circuit Court of Appeals Doe v. Bush.

    …To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress.

    Comment by madawaskan (fd190b) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:49 am

  56. How about OPERATION YOU CROSS THE LINE WHEN YOU BOMB YOUR PROTESTORS

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:03 am

  57. “We’re broke.” – John Boehner

    Comment by JEA (c03c68) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:11 am

  58. Aaron, I usually like your writing, but this is so wrong. Even if we were to grant the assumption this war is one America should be fighting (I do not), not criticising our Hypocrite in Chief as he engages it is the kind of politically suicidal strategy that keeps the Democrats winning our propaganda driven culture war.

    The war is a screwball thing for us to do, anyway, just as our wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were. We fought those wars and we are fighting this war so the Europeans won’t get flooded with refugees they don’t have the spine and sense of self preservation to turn back.

    That is not what the American taxpayer should be spending a fortune of borrowed money on our military to do. If the Europeans don’t want the refugees, let them fix the problem on their own dime.

    The argument that the war is about humanitarian concerns is bogus on its face. If this was about humanitarian concerns, why did we fail to do anything about the slaughter in the Sudan?

    Comment by Roland (ab3879) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:15 am

  59. Because it was a black lefty muslim Roland.

    If it were a white jewish right wing infidel i’am sure we would have gave aid.

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:29 am

  60. operation MONKEYSPANK?

    Comment by happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:34 am

  61. It seems to me that it would be vastly cheaper to simply try hard to kill the leaders directly, warning the next leader that they had better not cross the line Qaddafi did. I realize this is in violation of US Policy, but that is just an executive order (from Nixon? I can’t remember).

    I realize it’s a huge planet and a wealthy enough person can evade our bombs, but they wind up like Osama Bin Laden… they are much less a factor in the world, and no one wants to live like that if they have access to palaces and luxury.

    We have those B2 Spirits with the new modified huge bomb doors for those ridiculously massive bunker busters meant for Iran’s nuclear facilities. We should deploy that weapon wherever we think Qaddafi is. Then we should directly contact Qaddafi’s successor to explain that he had better not cross the line.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:39 am

  62. Operation MONKEYSPANK?

    No more like Operation OBAMAISIDIOT.

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:54 am

  63. With all due respect … the war in Libya … isn’t about … Libya. At all. Nor civilians. [Go ahead and ignore the link, Yahoo has just changed the default]

    Commenter Don J, in (no longer above) thread:

    “Let me see if I got this straight … Britain and France who been itching for Libyan oil for a long time, arm some rebels … The rebels march toward the capital … (and) a violent overthrow of the government. The government fights back … the rebels lose and retreat. The government follows them back to their home base. The rebels whine to their benefactors at the UN … The UNSC threatens military action if Libya attacks civilians. Meanwhile, the guerrilla rebels are inside civilian areas. Now, Obmama is conflating Libyan forces fighting the rebels, to killing civilians.”

    Is ONLY ’bout Chucklehead’s (mad, mad) props. He IS deranged. And his derangement … in part, stems from his raging (Shii) Islamism (Iran heading the caliphate makes him spoot). As well his NPD. It’s a formula for pure, revolting insanity, and the outbreak of global conflagration (which is happening before our very eyes … as we speak).

    And me … nevah been the biggest Rushbo fan [comes from my days (back in the) as a flamin' lib]. But now a year ago (?) … he Rush, simply nailed it.

    Obama is trying to destroy America.

    There is no other intent, explanation, reason, outcome. Sorry … there really ain’t. He is filth. He is a traitor. This isn’t politics. It is something beyond. Far beyond reason. Beyond measure. Beyond anything we have ever known.

    Libya to him, tis prolly nuttin but a second baseman … on the North Carolina Blackhawks football team. Worst part? We have yet to witness the full, complete return of evil (it’s coming), in all its wretched, drenched with blood glory [course that would be Derek Fenton's fault (as per Petraeus). And not a small crop of Petraeus' bad apples] (mini sarc tag).

    This war (as it were), is only going to get worse (L*rd I wish I was wrong).

    [I'll grab a cough'n nail, them mebbe go 'head and read the thread!]

    Comment by Elmo (a22b6b) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:55 am

  64. Iraq 64 UN Resolutions over many years. Vote in Congress and many diplomatic efforts. Libya 1 UN Resolution. Bypass of Congress and no diplomatic effort. Yet its Bush who ” rushed to war”?

    Comment by Dennis D (e0b996) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:56 am

  65. I think comparing and contrasting Obarcky’s stated positions is informative. Too bad the MFM would never dream of doing so.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:59 am

  66. “The war is a screwball thing for us to do, anyway, just as our wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were.”

    No, there is no comparison. Unlike the Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians, “Palestinians”, Hezbollah, Syrians, and Afghanis the Serbs never lifted a finger against the United States nor harmed U.S. citizens.

    We have real legitimate reasons for crushing K-daffy and the Libyans, we had none to go up against the Serbs.

    Comment by Dave Surls (bfc371) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:59 am

  67. The phrase previously was, “We support the troops, but not the war”, of which much has been written about how much sense that makes.
    How about, “We support the troops, we support the war, we support getting a real Commander in Chief”?

    I’m not sure of the origin of the policy to not plan to kill or capture the warring party’s leader. It seems on one hand that was always the aim, capture the King and you’ve captured the Kingdom. It makes even more sense in situations where the country at war is lead by an oppressive tyrant. I don’t think we are at war with Libya and the people of Libya any more than we were at war with Iraq/the people of Iraq or “the people” of Afghanistan.

    Anybody know the origin of such a policy and the rational behind it, other than giving tyrants freedom to move about the world while others die at their bidding.

    Comment by MD in Philly (c35f62) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:00 pm

  68. Xln’t thread. And many salient points made (too many to credit). Mostly, this whole shebang, in its entirety. Is about Chucklehead. His insanity. His madness. His treason. His (unshakable) allegiance to the caliphate. And his belief in himself … as duh twelff muddy … (tho’ Moo Moo sez it gunna be sum buddy ailse).

    Seems (too) many are mistaking President Hussein for an:

    A) American

    B) A leader

    C) A Christian

    D) A man

    E) A member of the human race.

    Comment by Elmo (c60b9b) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:05 pm

  69. md

    probably the policy is about thinking if we don’t go after their king, they won’t go after ours.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:05 pm

  70. probably the policy is about thinking if we don’t go after their king, they won’t go after ours.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing —

    And it is no surprise that kings love this rule, but if Obama is willing to send our military into harms way to stop this atrocity, he should be willing to face this risk too. In fact, I’d say people who aren’t willing to face this risk are unqualified to lead a military at all.

    Also, there’s the practical matter that Qaddafi or many like him would break this rule in a heartbeat if they could. The left ignores the fact that Saddam actually did try to murder Bush 41. If he had tried to murder a democrat, maybe they would have finally accepted the need to remove him (oh wait, they did accept that until a Republican said that too).

    And there’s another practical matter that this rule disfavors the USA. We have a safer king whose killing accomplishes relatively little, and they have a vulnerable king whose killing accomplishes so much. There is no moral reason to assassinate a US President, and he’s just got a VP anyway. You can’t really change America’s direction by killing her leaders (quite the contrary). But Qaddafi is a murderer who has oppressed his people. This rule is a terrible US Policy.

    Not that you’re wrong about why it’s in place. Our leaders are occasionally cowards. We need to be upfront that no dictator or king is legitimate, but especially we reserve the option without taking it to be an obligation to eliminate a leader who is a mass murderer.

    Even if attempting to eliminate Qaddafi sent him into hiding, it would be enough to replace him with a successor who would hesitate to follow Qaddafi’s ways.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:18 pm

  71. “Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now? If he is, then we have, to a degree, a patriotic duty to put those criticisms aside.”

    It is our DUTY to ignore the hypocrisy of the man? Our DUTY?

    Pass the Kool-aid. You suggest that it’s okay for Obama to have principles that are based in his desire to be elected and that he shifts 180 degrees without apology when it suits him.

    Even if he is right, right now — he needs to explain his change of values, not just bully on and hope that fools like you will bleat that it’s okay.

    Comment by Anonyma (e5eb3e) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:22 pm

  72. It is our DUTY to ignore the hypocrisy of the man? Our DUTY?

    I think he’s saying it’s our duty to some extent to make sure we’re united as a country in matters of war, especially the war on terror, despite the fact that much of the left simply hasn’t been fair to Bush in this way (to say the least).

    I don’t know how far that goes, but I don’t think Obama’s methods are OK, while I do hope he enjoys great success in Libya even though I’m not even clear exactly what he’s trying to do.

    You suggest that it’s okay for Obama to have principles that are based in his desire to be elected and that he shifts 180 degrees without apology when it suits him.

    That’s not OK, and we should call Obama out especially for being absolute about a principle he then reversed himself on. The main reason we should call him out is that it proves that Obama is not a patriot, but rather is willing to play cynical politics with our war effort.

    And that is not to say that there is nothing to criticize, here, or that you should withhold those criticisms of the current war. For instance, am I the only person who finds it creepy that the President seemed to have no desire to go to war until the U.N. passed its resolution?

    That’s from Aaron in this very post, so clearly he agrees with you, Anonyma.

    WE need to avoid playing politics with our war effort, though.
    How? I think by showing support for the righteousness of fighting Qaddafi while also making precise criticisms. We need not agitate against the effort to make the point you want to make.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:28 pm

  73. So the pro-khaddafi death squads are ok lefturds?

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 1:40 pm

  74. No, there is no comparison. Unlike the Libyans, Iraqis, Iranians, “Palestinians”, Hezbollah, Syrians, and Afghanis the Serbs never lifted a finger against the United States nor harmed U.S. citizens.

    Good point, Dave. However, it does not change my argument.

    Comment by Roland (ab3879) — 3/21/2011 @ 2:22 pm

  75. So let me guess this straight the liberals oppose us using nuclear power but not iranians using the same thing?

    Inconsistency just like the anti-war people.

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 2:32 pm

  76. Appropriate name for operation, it is an Odyssey, in that there are no clear goals and we are at the mercy of the gods, in this adventure.
    While I agree with Obama that this is a mission that should be undertaken, I criticize him for his dilatoriness in arriving at the decision, his snide remarks trying to differentiate this mission from Bush II’s wars, and Obama’s tying the hands of the soldiers so that they cannot remove the cancer that is at the heart of the threats against the Libyan people that Obama has sworn to protect:
    Qaddaffy Duck. Maybe being called Qaddaffy’s son, brought a tear to Obama’s eye, as he fondly recalled his trip to Libya with Farrakkkhan and other america haters? As for the British attempting to take Qaddaffy out, I’m all for it, although I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain would rather have a dead Qaddaffy duck, then a live dictator testifying in International Court about all the sweet deals he had with the British government. But, any port in a storm.

    Comment by eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 3/21/2011 @ 2:40 pm

  77. Supporting Obama’s decision and showing the hypocrisy of the left (in general) are not mutually exclusive.

    Comment by Bill (f8595a) — 3/21/2011 @ 4:42 pm

  78. Um, the difference between the two wars is that Obama’s actions are targeting the military and are helping innocent civilians. Bush’s war against the Iraqi people was indiscriminate and killed a lot of civilians.

    I support the Libya intervention and oppose the Iraq debacle for that distinction alone.

    Comment by samirnaga (64f771) — 3/21/2011 @ 4:46 pm

  79. But I had lectured the left throughout the Iraq War that criticism has to be responsible, with an eye toward the safety of our soldiers and the success of the mission.

    Isn’t that the question: precisely *what* is our mission? France, England and President Obama (and even Hillary) all seem to have a different end game in mind. This plan, by it’s sheer vagueness and lack of specifics will put soldier’s lives at risk. President Obama did not want to do his homework on this, let alone make the hard decision to put our feet in until pushed by three women. It’s not difficult to be critical of him in this.

    Comment by Dana (9f3823) — 3/21/2011 @ 4:58 pm

  80. I think you got that backward cochise, we targeted the top leadership of the Baathist clique, they
    targeted schools, hospitals, embassies, et al

    Comment by narciso (a3a9aa) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:02 pm

  81. As I recall, Obama’s self-proclaimed superior judgment regarding Iraq was THE issue that got him into office. Now we see what a colossal fraud it was, along with the inexcusable media-assisted slander campaign he launched against the Republican ticket.

    My only

    Comment by Northeast Elizabeth (24fc2b) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:07 pm

  82. Sorry, but schadenfruede or not, Obama deserves every bit of grief he is going to get over this.
    At least when Bush drug us into a war, he believed in it.

    Comment by Max (9b8c61) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:17 pm

  83. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

    Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

    Comment by Roy Rogers (eaf98d) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:32 pm


  84. * I have resolved from now on to call Libya’s leader Qdaffy, which I think originated with Iowahawk’s tweets. It seems about as valid a spelling as any other the others, right?

    Well, SNL did a piece back in the early 80s, (81-82, Brian Doyle Murray, IIRC) noting that at least 10 major newspapers (showing headlines from each paper with “their” spelling) all had a uniquely distinct spelling for Qdaffy. Followed it up with a “poll”: How do YOU spell “Khadaffi”? and ran off a list of about 100 suggestions.

    Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:33 pm


  85. Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?

    She got her head stuck so far up her ass it started to come back out the top, which violated the laws of physics, created a singularity, and she got sucked into it, never to be seen or heard from again in this universe.

    Most people would consider this a boon.

    Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:35 pm

  86. Aaron, you have a point; patriotic Americans should agree that playing politics ends at the water’s edge…

    KDaffy should have been greased long, long ago. He’s one of the original, old school terrorists. I’ll never forgive him for the Pan Am bombing.

    That said, we shouldn’t rein in our criticism of the timing of Mr. Obama’s initiative, nor his choices in setting the ROE, prosecuting the campaign; whatever it may be, or in determining the conditions of victory.

    I happen to have spent more than a bit of time actually doing the enforcing of no-fly zones in the ME and the Balkans, which leads to my concerns about well defined ROE and willingness to achieve the conditions of victory. Lack of either constitutes a cluster-f@*k that puts our people in greater danger would exist in an all-out effort.

    My chief concerns at this time is the commitment to completely destroying Libyan AD; not simply bombing C3 nodes, but in targeting mobile units via “Wild Weasel” missions.

    But even that takes a back seat to my fear that our units will be subordinated to either UN or NATO commmand, instead of taking the lead-like big digs generally do. This is based on Obama’s palaver about US operations lasting days instead of weeks, and proclaiming that afterward others will take control of the operation.

    That’s pure BS. Simply put, our NATO allies, regardless of their will, don’t have the capabilities of our forces. Today we hear casually that F-15s, and F-16s, “accompanied” our allies on strikes near Benghazi; as if they were merely flying CAP for the strike mission. But the precision of the attacks on KDaffy’s armoured and mechanized units put the lie to Obama’s words that only the pilots of our allies would be in harms way over Libya.

    I don’t have any problem with greasing KDaffy, and my prayers are with our warriors daily. But I believe that Obama should have to come clean about the central role we’re playing in this operation, and make it clear that we aren’t acting at the direction of the UN or NATO, but explain how this is in the national security interests of our nation. He should also be very clear about what “victory” will look like; so that we can all rejoice when the “mission accomplished” benchmarks are met.

    And as far as “reminding” proggresives about this episode the next time they pop off about Iraq, or some future event? Well, as comments in this very thread illustrate, that won’t work; they have no problem with hypocrisy or using a double standard when convenient. Indeed, regardless of my own personal talking point of being a use-ta-bee whose butt was in the saddle back in the day, none would ever admit that Mr. Clinton’s military adventures were anything less than righteous and true, regardless of his treating the armed forces like his person Daisy™ Red Rider BB gun…

    My Regards

    PS Congrats on being linked by AllahP.

    Comment by Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 3/21/2011 @ 5:35 pm

  87. By contrast, with the action against Libya, one cannot say that the United States is acting as the “world’s policeman”. The UN Security Council approval makes it clear that the US is merely policing with the world, not on its own. Especially important to consider: The attacks on Libya not only have UN approval, but that of the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In other words, there is an ACTUAL coalition of countries backing this, not an American led invasion force with a few countries tacked on (as in Iraq).

    If something is right, it is no less right because only one person is doing it.

    If something is wrong, it is no less wrong because one billion people are doing it.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:16 pm

  88. Where’s Cindy Sheehan when you need her?
    Comment by Roy Rogers — 3/21/2011 @ 5:32 pm

    – Feel free to do your own research next time, Roy. Here’s a representative excerpt of Cindy’s sarcasm-laden screed on this topic, from her blog:
    “I just hope the people of Libya realize that it’s way more of an honor to be killed by a US bomb then by a Libyan bomb and what an honor it is that the US is paying attention to their internal strife, because we don’t always do that—we like to pick and choose—and Libya, it’s probably just a coincidence that we choose YOU because you have oil. My country would never do anything wrong when a Democrat is president and I will forget history, too, because I don’t need it anymore.”
    Basically, she’s saying that in her eyes Obama is every bit as ‘bad’ as Bush.

    Comment by Icy Texan (74b5d1) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:25 pm

  89. Like others, I am not opposed to seeing Qdaffy taken out. But the administration is saying that is not their goal. If that is not their goal, what is? Protecting against genocide? Ok, does that mean the U.S. should step in to the mess in Sudan, or any other hot spot? If Qdaffy isn’t taken out, does that mean the U.S. will enforce a no-fly zone for years to come? Say what you will about Bush’s execution of the Iraq War, but he had a goal in mind of removing Saddam and fostering a democratic ally in the Middle East. If Obama doesn’t have an end game to this situation, I see nothing wrong with opposing his decision.

    Comment by Buckeye Tom (e34f22) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:36 pm

  90. Stop?! I will stop speaking truth to power when enough Americans see that the emperor has no clothes. It is my duty to say so in the meantime, even when he’s in broken-clock mode and right on some issue. Almost 50% of America still approves of his presidency and he’s the favorite to win again in ’12. Just keep telling the truth, and this nightmare might end in a couple years. Don’t stop.

    Comment by G. Charles (ba2e39) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:45 pm

  91. “– Feel free to do your own research next time, Roy. Here’s a representative excerpt of Cindy’s sarcasm-laden screed on this topic, from her blog”

    Icy Texan, I could be wrong but Roy Rogers could be talking about the fact that Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war antics aren’t all over NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC like they were when she was trying to embarrass George W. Bush. She was a useful idiot for the left to pound on Bush. Now that she is critizing President Obama, she isn’t newsworthy.

    Comment by Buckeye Tom (e34f22) — 3/21/2011 @ 6:55 pm

  92. Point taken, Tom, but I’m not sure that Roy meant it that way.

    Comment by Icy Texan (74b5d1) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:06 pm

  93. Saminraga is a mendoucheous lying tool.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:52 pm

  94. Don’t stop.

    Comment by G. Charles

    Did you read Aaron’s post, or just a few lines of it? Did you get to the part where Aaron encourages you to criticize Obama?

    It’s still important not to go about this in a way that is propaganda for our enemies. The USA is sending brave fighting men and women into harm’s way, so mere turnabout to what the left did to Bush is deeply unpatriotic, as is dismissing Aaron’s point merely because of politics.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 7:56 pm

  95. Icy Texan, I have to admit Sheehan is intellectually consistent, if paranoid and daffy. It was a shame to see democrats exploit this woman for political gain. This is exactly what I mean by being critical in the proper way. Parading a grieving mother of a killed soldier, and building her up into a bullhorn of naive talking points, only to drop her when you gain the White House, is disgusting.

    Sheehan went too far, and I think she tarnished Casey’s memory of heroic service, but I think it’s worth asking why Obama would bomb Libya and not other countries that lack oil. I think there’s a good answer to that question, but why shouldn’t the left get a direct answer?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:00 pm

  96. There is nothing unpatriotic about honest criticism. In fact, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:02 pm

  97. No, seriously screw you.

    You are hypocrite plain and simple. You did not take these approaches under Bush, and now you expect better treatment for your elected God.

    Me and millions of others are going to hammer you as the hypocrite that you are, well past the time that Obama is out of the picture.

    In 2050 we are still going to be bringing this up, and every other backpeddling bulls**t action, and through it in your faces.

    You hypocrites deserve no less.

    Comment by Tom (855259) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:03 pm

  98. There is nothing unpatriotic about honest criticism. In fact, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

    Comment by JD

    Of course, there are valid criticisms that we all should hit Obama with. Just his absolute principle that presidents don’t have the power to do what he just did invites a criticism that he plays politics with national security.

    However, we’ve got men and women in harm’s way, and it’s possible to temper our critical points in a way that is of limited propaganda value against their fight, which all patriotic Americans should do all they reasonably can to assist.

    I think that latter point is the core of my point.

    Tom, are you on drugs?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:08 pm

  99. I may support the war (still reading up on it) and generally agree that we should not follow the Left’s example of labeling something someone else’s war when they don’t agree with it and there may be some schadenfreude (which I think is OK), but neither one of these is the point, as far as I’m concerned.

    The point is that Obama and the Left’s behavior and arguments against Iraq and their behavior now must NOT be allowed to go down the memory hole. They need to be reminded and reminded and reminded. A few of them, a very few, may even wake up.

    Support the war, fine. Schadenfreude, maybe. Let them forget? NEVER.

    Comment by Judith (c1402a) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:14 pm

  100. Tom

    I supported the iraq war. still do. glad we did it.

    I have been angry at the left for many years for their conduct in relation to iraq. i understand and respect the desire to get a little vindication for that fight. and needless to say every time a liberal bashes bush, i will remind them of this.

    but we have bigger fish to fry, here.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:17 pm

  101. just put a bullet in the mans brain already. Obama needs to call him already, say, later bro, and do him in. If not it was all for show.

    Comment by Very Stiff Dick (ee4d88) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:20 pm

  102. Tom is kind of a moron. Kind of like our idiot President, who made the right decision, at least 3 weeks late, and in doing so, directly contradicts all of his state principled positions. He is a f@cking fraud and a liar and a hypocrite and a nozzle and a demonic clown and that is all.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:26 pm

  103. Actions like these carry dual benefits of showing a dictator and his longtime victims that the oppressor is no more than a petty thug on a shoestring budget; while at the same time making others like him worry about receiving similar treatment. And in this socio-political environment, encouraging other popular revolts. So make that a triple.

    Unfortunately, it’s Democratic presidents who are spared grief from the media and the left for doing what most presidents would and should.

    Comment by Cover Me, Porkins (c107ed) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:32 pm

  104. Meanwhile Obama is going to spend us into poverty and our poverty rate will be higher than argentinas.

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:40 pm

  105. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now? If he is, then we have, to a degree, a patriotic duty to put those criticisms aside.

    There is no way in the world we have a patriotic duty to put legitimate criticism aside. When we start screaming about how Obama is a traitor who lied us into war for oil, then you might have a point. Noticing that Obama in particular and the Left in general have no coherent philosophy of anything is not unpatriotic. We’re trying to prevent the election of as many of these irrational utopians as possible.

    As to whether he’s right: if you agree with intervening for purely humanitarian reasons, then he’s right, but he got there by throwing darts. That is not the least bit reassuring.

    Comment by FUBAR (6ef156) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:43 pm

  106. I agree with Tom. Screw ‘em. And keep screwing ‘em every chance you get.

    Don’t lose your judgement just because someone waves the flag — especially if that someone is left of center (e.g., LBJ). The left will double-cross our troops in a heartbeat; the only way to truly support them is to make sure we don’t get caught up in a war where our national interests are clearly at stake.

    Comment by Vietnam Vet (39cf3c) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:52 pm

  107. That should be “aren’t clearly at stake.

    Comment by Vietnam Vet (39cf3c) — 3/21/2011 @ 8:59 pm

  108. Me…… I don’t like thuggery now matter which party is doing the thug’n.

    roflmao

    Comment by donabernathy (92f5b8) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:06 pm

  109. There was an agreement with Gaddafi about his nuclear program…he would stop it, and his support for insurgents…he would stop it.

    Since he made the approach to the Bush Administration, and to whatever degree it was codified…..

    …what happens to those agreements and issues now?

    Can Obama afford take a side in a tribal civil war and fail?

    If Obama does not prevail with regime change and install a regime which will reinstate or maintain those issues…how can he explain that cost and run in 2012…with Gaddafi still in charge?

    Comment by George Dixon (303c93) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:33 pm

  110. It IS our patriotic duty to smash this into the egos of every leftist who spent the last 10 years trashing America. It was often pointed out during Iraq that the Progressives went a-shootin’ in Kosovo. No matter.

    Each and every one of those moral cowards needs to be called to the carpet and made to answer for their behavior. If we do not, they will slink away today and come back to bite us in the future. Their children will inherit their venom and we will have more of them with each generation than can be smashed under foot.

    Supporting the President – a very big thing to ask when we have no real explanation for what we’re after – can be done while we drag all of those sons of bitches out into the public square to answer for their crimes against our country and against the decent, just desire to free their fellow man. Those things are not mutually exclusive. But letting them get away with their behavior and doing justice to our country are.

    Comment by Amos (89bc07) — 3/21/2011 @ 9:40 pm

  111. Sorry, nice try. But the Left has sown the wind, and now they must reap the whirlwind. Your calls for a “new civility” are admirable, but you’re a few weeks too late. Wisconsin, my friend.

    Comment by British Contrarian (ce76a1) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:53 pm

  112. I’m not going out with smutty signs to protest the Libya war.

    But it’s an amazing piece of effrontery. In the high-level discussion, when H. Clinton bullied our hero into it, did you notice any mention of the US public, the parents and kids, spouses and friends, moral and financial support of the soldiers we are to stand behind (in other words, us)? No.

    Not only does the project itself have no definition, the rationale has none. QDaffy shoots civilians = bad. Fine, I agree, the world will not miss QDaffy. Mugabe shoots and tortures civilians. Kim Jong Il shoots, starves, tortures and kidnaps civilians. Somali pirates, Darfur, Burma, how about our neighbors the narco-terrorists in Mexico that shoot and behead civilians, including our own? Not to mention all the Arab rebellions.

    Is the criteria that they are in the news lately, so politically useful? Or is the perpetrator to have been softened up for us, by rebellion or something (conveniently eliminates tough opponents like China, which also kills civilians). Do we dare ask, is it significant that our favorite civilians to protect are Muslim? Black Africans, Asians, Mestizos, etc. (much less whites) need not apply.

    Or is it just the whim of our elected dictator, to go after the bad guy of his choice that day? He’s tired of parties, so it’s a change of pace, a nice chance to feed his ego and wear a white hat, bump his polls, fire up his base, and maybe salve his widdle hurt feelings for being called a wimp and Ditherer in Chief? Crappy governments throughout time have engaged in foreign adventures to distract hapless citizens via nationalism. Looks like now we do too. Let me be clear, I really love sonorously invoking the International Communiteh, and after all, make no mistake, QDaffy acted stupidly.

    At our present rate of crappy governance, we better make a long list of available bad guys – øbama will need it. So do we take them one at a time, or all at once? Yay, team.

    Comment by jodetoad (7720fb) — 3/21/2011 @ 10:59 pm

  113. But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now? If he is, then we have, to a degree, a patriotic duty to put those criticisms aside. Maybe the President is too small to admit it, but either 1) he was full of it when opposing the Iraq War, or 2) he has changed his mind. And if you think he is making the right decision, we shouldn’t make it too difficult, politically, to do the right thing, or else he might stop doing the right thing. In other words, please lay off.

    I disagree entirely. The military doesn’t need Obama to trash Qaddafi’s forces. He’s not some kind of military leader except in the constitutional sense, which is important of course.

    He made the right decision, after vacillation, sloth, and is now doing it with little thought for the various contingencies. The chance of his incompetence messing things up is high.

    I hope the president success. I doubt his capacity to deliver. And it is right to criticize that, and criticize his hypocrisy, and be as smug as we damn well please. It won’t hurt America’s ability to win this war. That was true to a degree when GWB was President, just because those wars were and are more consequential, and because of the huge political uproar they have caused at home. That seems unlikely here.

    Criticize away, all the schaedenfreude you like. But if boots go on the ground, the conservative position must be: crushing victory over Qaddafi, very swift, and a swift withdrawal, or just getting away from it entirely.

    Mission creep, I’ve had enough of it. Go in with enough force to truly decimate the enemy quickly, which we have the capacity to do, or don’t do it at all.

    Comment by deeplemeblues (a78b16) — 3/21/2011 @ 11:00 pm

  114. “…but is he right, right now?”

    No, he is not. However, it distracts from domestic budget issues and gives him a little “Arab street” cred for the voters in ’12.

    What our bombing of Libya doesn’t do, as our actions in Iraq did under Bush, is hold the promise -or at least potential- of a sustainably more peaceful Mid-East. The creation of a democratic, market-oriented country in the midst of tyrant-controlled fiefdoms could have made internationally bad behavior much more complicated for kings, their cousins, ayatollahs and other pests. What always had to remain unspoken, of course, was that Israel would benefit the most.

    Our current actions in Libya promise only more uncertainty. And Obama has no interest in the creation, or even rise, of democratic, market-oriented nations. I could flippantly add a remark about our own ‘market-orientation’, but I write this from Basra, Iraq. Here, I am a witness to, and very minor participant in, the State Department-driven and Army-abetted creation of a coalition of the viciously venal -you don’t think Muqtada al Sadr just showed up back in Baghdad without an invite, do you?- so as to create a temporary calm for our final retreat. What is being given away here, I suspect, will in the moral scales of historical judgment far outweigh President Obama’s domestic demerits.

    So, thank you very much for the advice, but I shall keep this mote of schadenfreude.

    Comment by Doorgunner (1df23f) — 3/22/2011 @ 12:09 am

  115. Mission creep, I’ve had enough of it. Go in with enough force to truly decimate the enemy quickly, which we have the capacity to do, or don’t do it at all.

    Right now, our official goals are to enforce a no-fly zone and to “protect civilians.” Killing Gadhafi is officially off the table, although the military has allowed that he might “accidentally” get in the way of a cruise missile .. nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

    But what’s our criterion for success? How will we know when we’ve won? And does that criterion for success include regime change and/or Gadhafi’s death? And what if the new regime is even worse than the old one?

    It seems to me that Obama has forgotten — or more likely, never bothered to think about — the old maxim: When you strike at a king, you must kill him.

    What happens to America’s credibility as an ally and as the leader of what used to be called the Free World if Gadhafi is still in power when hostilities cease?

    Comment by Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 3/22/2011 @ 1:16 am

  116. Oh and off-topic, but “Operation Odyssey Dawn“? Really? Shouldn’t the name of the war sound at least mildly badass?

    Obama really wanted to call it Operation Voyage of the Dawn Trader

    But the generals put their foot down on that one. Thank goodness.

    Comment by Jack von Bauer (625684) — 3/22/2011 @ 1:50 am

  117. Sorry man, I’m not into playing nice with these sniveling little s**t anti-war protestors anymore. If they aren’t going to go protest by the tens of thousands, we should point the hypocrisy. We’re in a war here at home with socialists, marxists, and their enablers. And if we don’t win this one……good bye America. So I absolutely refuse to get behind anything this president does. He’s governed with a level of arrogance and condescension I’ve never seen in my life, and has spat in the face of the public too many times already. Barack Obama and his idiot supporters are a much bigger threat to the US than Libya ever will be.

    Comment by EMR (73c67e) — 3/22/2011 @ 2:48 am

  118. I [Cindy Sheehan] hope with this confession and subsequent penance (10 Our Fathers, 20 Hail Mary’s and a pledge to vote Democrat for the rest of my life) that I am accepted back into the fold of the Democratic Party. I will also voluntarily swear to uphold healthcare for profit and to love Wall Street, the war machine, and the bankers with all my heart while detesting working people and those people who want to “kill Americans” for absolutely no reason. In Obama I trust. What a relief! Having a conscience is very isolating. Let’s Party with a capital D because if I can CHANGE, then there is HOPE for everyone and anyone else who are still lost wandering nearly alone in that wilderness of integrity. Come home! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength. 2 + 2 = 5

    Comment by Rodan (03e5c2) — 3/22/2011 @ 3:19 am

  119. The Schadenfreude is lost on them anyway. They by (self) definition represent what is good and right in the world…therefore the Libya adventure is a good/pure/true cause to be embraced. What could be easier to understand?

    Comment by Gunga (8c6ea3) — 3/22/2011 @ 3:56 am

  120. This has the makings of Bosnia 2.0 … a long, drawn-affair with a steady drip-drip-drip of death, because Progressive conventional wisdom forbids decisive action to establish and maintain the ESSENTIAL element for sustainable peace — rights-respecting governance — in these nations.

    In the calculus of moral equivalence between dictator and democrat that drives this conventional wisdom, such decisive action is “imperialism” … but such an invasion of sovereignty is precisely what is needed in these cases, to conclusively put an end to the conditions that create the violence.

    It is not imperialism to replace them with rights-respecting governance … as tyrants are inherently illegitimate as the embodiment of a nation’s government, if we truly agree with the justification for our own nation’s founding.

    My criticism is that we are sticking with the conventional wisdom of the last century, when history shows us what it really takes to – instead of sending our Men and Women into the same parts of the world again and again and again – put a stop to these “wars without end” … and until we challenge that conventional wisdom and the supposedly “enlightened” who adhere to it because “that’s what the cool kids do”, we’re going to keep repeating this insanity.

    But if you think that America’s uppity
    And must be put in her place …
    I’l be standin’ here to make sure you’re starin’
    History in the face …
    Your lack of confidence in her
    Has made the world less free …
    And where people aren’t free peace is just an illusion
    So I am pro-victory.

    … of course, we should also keep in mind that when you strip away the facade, most of the anti-war Left is really driven by fear … the fear of not having leaders who will take from others to give us “what we deserve”, and the fear of having one’s mellow harshed by credible criticism and disdain for one’s pet vice … and therefore, war is seen as a convenient emotional club to beat down their political opponents with to discredit them and forestall those outcomes … even when tyrants are left in place to oppress and destroy the innocent when we have the power and the justification to stop them.

    Comment by Ritchie The Riveter (c38676) — 3/22/2011 @ 4:01 am

  121. Obama really wanted to call it Operation Voyage of the Dawn Trader…
    Comment by Jack von Bauer — 3/22/2011 @ 1:50 am

    – Huh? What’s a “dawn trader,” Jack? Is that like a ‘day trader’ that only operates during the first half-hour that the market is open?

    Comment by Icy Texan (59f4d2) — 3/22/2011 @ 5:12 am

  122. Actually the correct comparison for THE ONE’s military adventure is not Iraq it’s the Bosnia War and Operation Deliberate Force in 1995. Go back and look up when Clinton authorized airstrikes on the serbs (During a Budget battle with the GOP and just before a government shutdown), when the Dayton Accords were negotiated (Nov 1st thru the 21st, while the first government shutdown occurred) and when the Accords were signed to end the Bosnian War(Dec 14th two days before the second government shutdown).

    THE ONE is hoping to do what Clinton did in 1995 to get re-elected. We have already had the blame the right for violence meme with Giffords shooting, Libya is his chance to “Win” a war without putting troops on the ground like Clinton.

    You think Clinton didn’t demonize the GOP for shutting down the government while “our” boys were in harms way, because that is what the ONE is going to do if/when the government shutsdown after this last CR and we are still bombing Libya.

    Comment by boballab (356c2a) — 3/22/2011 @ 5:45 am

  123. Love all the humor (dang do we ever need it). Me, not really too big on the slicing/dicing/parrying. Cuzz … well … I think any relation/conflation of parallells (or skew) vis a vis Iraq/Commandant Sitzpinkler, takes away from the current reality. And where our eyeballs should be [kinda like watching the devastation tally/Japan. Contrasted with coverage of Bambi working on his tan in Rio (a leader of men woulda popped over to Tokyo just to hold hands and serve up a cuppa joe)].

    Instead, I’d say eyes forward, eyes on the prize. Saving America … from disappearing before our very eyes. Under the crushing weight of the fourth estate’s sedition, and Khalid Sheikh Obama’s evil.

    Was watching leel Kapo Wolfie Blitzer (other night), and was quite a treat. To hear that brick fall, with a loud clankin B A N G (out his arse, to the floor). When his reporter, in the field said: (there’s an) interesting point Wolf, of the 114 Tomahawks fired, 112 were fired by the Americans.

    As all of MSM (Mooselimb State Media) fires up their looong horns … and blare: French lead [behind the wheel (cue Depeche Mode/Rt66)]/British (riding shotgun/checking maps)/America [back seat (watching a SpongeBob DVD)]

    Comment by Elmo (6e75b1) — 3/22/2011 @ 5:46 am

  124. Hey, the French DO lead!!!

    . . . they lead the retreat; they lead the surrender; they lead the appeasement; they lead the kow-towing; they lead in empty threats; they lead . . .

    Comment by Icy Texan (59f4d2) — 3/22/2011 @ 5:48 am

  125. Yes, let’s support “our President” on doing the right thing — and always saying how this proves he was wrong on Iraq. And he IS wimpier than a Sarah Palin who called for a no-fly zone two weeks ago. And how Obama Dems are such hypocrites for not protesting gov’t war making that is far less democratic than Bush.
    Where are the UN resolutions against Khaddafi? Heck, he was on the (revised) Human Rights Council (or whatever their pro-dictator group is now called).
    Obama’s actions are right on Guantanamo, but he lied about it when opposing the President before.
    Obama’s actions are right to support troops in Afghanistan, but he lied when opposing the President before.
    He’s a lying hypocrite, and every Dem who voted for him voted, somewhat knowingly, for a lying hypocrite.

    Yes, support Obama in the correct same-as-Bush actions, but complain, LOUDLY, about the wimpy, incompetent, inconsistent, ego maniac the Big Gov’t Dems support, and their anti-American, anti-Christian, pro-tax, pro-abortion opposition to Bush and many Republicans.

    Comment by TG (928152) — 3/22/2011 @ 6:39 am

  126. TG

    Sarah Palin would have killed and field-dressed Gdaffy by now.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/22/2011 @ 7:07 am

  127. What our bombing of Libya doesn’t do, as our actions in Iraq did under Bush, is hold the promise -or at least potential- of a sustainably more peaceful Mid-East

    That’s a good point. I think he’s right to use force against Qaddafi, though I think this is a perfect reason why our constitution places this power in Congress’s hands, leaving Obama merely as the executive of Congress’s wishes.

    This plan of his needs to suffer oversight hearings ASAP.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 3/22/2011 @ 7:16 am

  128. Bauer

    > Obama really wanted to call it Operation Voyage of the Dawn Trader…

    Ha!

    iowahawk wrote something like, “was ‘operation fluffy bunnies’ taken?”

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/22/2011 @ 9:23 am

  129. My favorite was always from a book I read: “Operation Buttercup”

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/22/2011 @ 9:58 am

  130. Scott

    I think Frank J. would like that name!

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/22/2011 @ 10:07 am

  131. But Aaron palin is racist EricPWjohnsonless said so so it must be true.

    /Sarc

    Comment by DohBiden (984d23) — 3/22/2011 @ 10:10 am

  132. Instead of a no fly zone, why not just destroy all of his air force and helicopters. We know what he has and where they are. Just destroy them and anything which would help repair them.

    Ship in some arms, if necessary, and let the public do their job.

    This also applies to Syria!!!!

    Comment by augustr (e97eec) — 3/22/2011 @ 4:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5412 secs.