Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2011

Good News: I Am Unpatriotic and Unprincipled on Libya (and You Might Be, Too)!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:56 pm



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

So for several months I have been talking about how I believed that the war in Libya is unlawful and indeed represents a willful disregard of the Constitution by President Obama.  I made it clear that I felt that intervening in Libya was a good idea (if only they were doing it more competently), if only to remove the butcher of Pan Am 103 from power and maybe usher him into the next world, too.  But at the same time, the Constitution stated that the President can’t just start a war on his own, and the President understood that.  And I am not a fair-weather Constitutionalist.

And for that I, and everyone who thinks the same way, are being called unpatriotic and unprincipled.  Yes, really.  First, you get Hillary Clinton:

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

Hey, remember when dissent was patriotic?  We knew that wouldn’t last.  But really, let’s see here, it is a politician behaving in a shameful and hypocritical manner.  Yeah, it’s wrong and outrageous, but it’s kind of the nature of the beast.

On the other hand, I find this next example more galling, because it purports to come from a news article, which is not supposed to engage in commentary  In USA Today, David Jackson reports on a Gallup Poll that shows that a plurality of Americans are opposed to the Libyan war, with 46% disapproving and 39% approving.  Then when trying to explain what drives this opposition—whether it’s about the wisdom of the war itself, or the constitutional issue–he writes:

Most of the critics oppose the conflict on principle, as opposed to the recent political dispute over whether President Obama should have obtained congressional authorization for U.S. participation.

(Emphasis added.) Got that?  If you think it’s a bad policy, you are opposing the conflict on principle.  On the other hand, if you think Barrack Obama should have taken his own advice and obtained prior approval, you are unprincipled.

In other Libya news, Congress refused to approve of the fighting, and then voted against a measure to defund it.  Oy vey.  Also, apparently the AFP is not buying Obama’s claims that the Libyan War does not constitute “hostilities.”  Witness this bit in a story about Italy’s reticence in the matter:

Italy called for a suspension of hostilities in Libya on Wednesday in the latest sign of dissent within NATO as the civilian death toll mounts and Moamer Kadhafi shows no signs of quitting power.

(emphasis added.)  Of course to be fair, I am not sure they even realized that they were verbally contradicting the president.  And even if they did, well…  what the hell can they call it?  Hostilities seems like just about the mildest term they could have used.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

52 Responses to “Good News: I Am Unpatriotic and Unprincipled on Libya (and You Might Be, Too)!”

  1. There is a case for overthrowing the present government of Libya, but nobody (other than the present government of Libya) has made it. There is a case for blowing Q’adaffy (yes, I know I’m spelling it wrong. I don’t care) into chutney. Nobody (other than Q’adaffy) has made it. There is a case for yanking the funding, but it would necessitate having a spine, which doesn’t describe anybody in Congress who is in a position to do so. Nobody is making a coherent case for ANY course of action. There comes a time, damnit, when one begins to feel a creeping nostalgia for the Hearst papers that trumped up the Spanish-American war; at least somebody somewhere had a firm idea of what they wanted to do, and how it should be done.

    If I thought that what Obama was doing would accomplish anything (worthwhile would be nice, but I don’t insist on it), I wouldn’t mind so much. If I though that the bitching the Republicans were doing would result in anything tangible, I would be happier. And at this point if I thought that aliens from Mars were about to point their blasters at DC, set on “Deep Fat Fry”, I would dance a Goddamned Jig,

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  2. But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

    I have such a hard time with this.

    She calls dissent, the kind that speaks directly to the constitution, and relies on Obama’s own argument, taking Qaddafi’s side?

    are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people

    So Hillary is a neocon, which I certainly respect, but this is an amazing shift for the lady who broadcast her distrust for General Petraeus.

    No, Hillary, the bottom line is NOT whether we care about Libyans. The bottom line is that we have a congress, elected by the people, and we’ve used that to authorize warfare for a damn good reason. And one of those reasons is in fact because accountability leads to better results.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  3. dustin

    well to be fair she did stand up in favor of invading iraq and even went a long way toward exonerating bush of the claim he lied about the WMDS. she had some honor in that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. I realize Hillary is not a foaming at the mouth antiwar kook, but that episode with Gen Petraeus sticks out in my mind as Congress trying to assert oversight in a particularly heavy handed exchange.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. Most of the critics oppose the conflict on principle, as opposed to the recent political dispute over whether President Obama should have obtained congressional authorization for U.S. participation.

    And yeah, I didn’t miss just how ugly the assumption here is. It speaks for itself, though. Some people assume the worst in the most convenient ways.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  6. McCain and Princess Lindsey are on Hillary’s side and she should be content with that I think cause of they are Hugely Respected Voices as opposed to being cowardly self-important poofters. For reals. 9 out of 10 dentists agree. Pantsuit hoochie shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

    But personally I could care less about the whole Libya thing – it’s just not on my radar as my little country circles the obamadebt toilet – but it should be noted I think that simply sprinkling bombs on the country is sorta gay and ineffectual. Even noted obamawhore Colin Powell can’t possibly agree with this farce.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  7. oh. Nevermind.

    Kinda scary that we actually used to let this douchebag command for reals troops.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  8. I think D’Obama wants congress to defund his debacle. That way he can paint Republicans as causing his little experiment in ‘Humanitarian Blood for Oil Friendly Guidance Kinetic Action’ to fail, not his own lazy-ass coke-headed failure of leadership. I think what congress should do is keep making their displeasure in his lack of accountability and his unconstitutional actions plain, but stop short of anything that takes the onus for ending our involvement in Libya off his shoulders. This could be fun, and in the long run, worth the money he’s wasting there.

    starboardhelm (e93080)

  9. Wow, you were so right for a moment…and, then, BOOM, off the rails.

    First, what a disgusting comment by Hillary. Why does she sound like a Bushie?

    But, Aaron, I get the rhetorical fun you had with the Italians, but, come on! Koh and the rest did not argue there were not hostilities in Libya; they argued that the US was NOT involved in those hostilities, since our people are not in danger.

    That reasoning is — for sure — stupid and has been correctly derided as stupid from Right and Left, but it is not a denial that someone is doing something hostile in Libya.

    Oh, the lengths we go for rhetorical flourishes!

    timb (449046)

  10. the US was NOT involved in those hostilities, since our people are not in danger.

    We’re helping kill people, man. People are lying dead right now.

    How can you pretend the USA is not involved in hostilities?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  11. Since our people are not in danger?!?!?!?’?!

    JD (318f81)

  12. Who said the following?

    I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

    aunursa (323789)

  13. Hillary RedHam Clinton and the Obama regime have been played like fools. The Islamists were okay with “Arab Spring” in Egypt, since it got rid of a pro-West leader, but look how, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran circle the wagons for the criminal Assad in Syria.

    Of course, Clinton and Obama still see Assad as a “reformer”, whether he’s murdering his own people or continuing to thumb his nose and act against every interest America has in the Middle East.

    These people canNOT be trusted to run American foreign policy, they are rank amateurs.

    ColonelHaiku (2e01a7)

  14. Hillary, and President Obama, need to take a trip down memory lane and revisit some of her comments from the recent past. I posted on it at Dan Collins new site:

    http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/06/hillary-clinton-questions-the-patriotism-of-libya-war-critics/

    I also linked to your most excellent fisking of that Time piece yesterday Aaron.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)


  15. if you think Barrack Obama should have taken his own advice and obtained prior approval, you are unprincipled


    This, strangely, seems like one of those exceptionally rare cases where the schoolyard retort: “I know you are, but what am I?” is remarkably apt instead of just silly and childish…

    😀

    Smock Puppet (c9dcd8)

  16. And even if they did, well… what the hell can they call it? Hostilities seems like just about the mildest term they could have used.

    >>>> Oh, Come NOW. <<<<

    You are vastly… and I DO mean vastly… underestimating the liberal capacity for disingenuous tap-dancing in defense of their regularly indefensible positions.

    I mean, come on, these assholes do it 24/7/365.25

    About the only time they AREN’T speaking out of both sides of their mouths are century-leap-years.

    An obvious alternative to “hostilities”: “The recent Libyan unpleasantness

    Smock Puppet (c9dcd8)

  17. They were doing this 15 years ago against the people who opposed the Clinton/bin Laden alliance against the Serbs. This new one is just another Democrat/al Qaeda adventure.

    j curtis (250e04)

  18. And yeah, I didn’t miss just how ugly the assumption here is. It speaks for itself, though. Some people assume the worst in the most convenient ways.
    Dustin, you’re imposing a too simplistic scheme–same as the reporter did, only in the opposite direction.

    Opposition to the Libyan intervention can be broken down into several reasons:
    1)Oppose it because you think interventions like this are bad in principle–the Ron Paul approach
    2)Oppose it because you think this particular intervention is not a good idea, but some other interventions would be–call it the modified neocon approach
    3)Oppose it because it was not authorized by Congress, but would have supported it if it had been so authorized.
    4)Oppose it because it was not authorized by Congress, and you think in this case it was a bad idea anyway.
    5) Oppose it because it was not authorized by Congress, and you also think this sort of intervention is bad in principle in all cases

    1, 3, and 5 are clearly entitled to say they are opposing on principle; 2 is clearly not entitled;
    4 is doubtfully entitled.

    JBS (510a0a)

  19. It’s interesting that you put it that way, J. Curtis, in one of the books on the Milan mosque, whose imam, was ‘renditioned’ to Egypt, it is clearly shown how the AQ networks that stemmed from that war, began during the Bosnian conflict.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  20. Democrats have no imagination. They cannot imagine the concept of a politician being in favor of something, but requiring on principle that it be done with due process within the law.

    “Due process” for a Democrat is:
    1) Is there political advantage for me in doing it?
    2) Have the media give me cover while I do it.

    sherlock (62f2cf)

  21. JBS, I disagree. I hold view 2, and also know congress can regulate the military, and has, and those regulations should be followed by the President.

    I don’t understand how you can say my views are unprincipled.

    Pay closer attention to what I said. He’s making an ugly assumption that is convenient to a mission of shilling for Obama. It’s as simple as that. Sure, that assumption may he correct about someone out there. You have explained there are many possibilities, and he’s chosen the very worst one. So how am I being too simplistic for identifying this assumption?

    BTW, there’s a huge difference between the Libyan ‘intervention’ (I apologize, but LOL) and, say, striking down Iran’s nuclear weapons program. One could be seen as authorized by resolutions for protecting Americans, after all. So again, you’re assuming these other ‘interventions’ (again, LOL) are not supported by the very principle some may find the Libyan mission falling short of.

    We probably should have targeted countries that are active threats and supporting terrorism, or that we believe have WMD programs, the way Bush did (imperfect as he did it). Striking Libya is a bright red message in block letters: SUPPORT TERRORISM AND BUILD NUKES AND NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH AMERICA. Think about it.

    Now, it’s too late to put the cat back in the bag on this. The message has been sent, and we need to win in Libya if that’s possible. And Qaddafi is a bastard who has it coming. But I think those kinds of sentiments, while true, are the actual simple ones.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  22. 6) Oppose it, because even though you think it might be in the best interests of America, you do not want to see a Republican to get credit for it if it turns out to be.

    Reference: any conflict between January 2001 and January 2009.

    sherlock (62f2cf)

  23. btw, Aunursa wins the thread, in my opinion. If anyone’s unprincipled, it’s Hillary Clinton for her awful flip flop on simple discussion of such a critical issue.

    And of course, Obama, for his unbelievable description of what his oath entails, constitutionally, and then doing the exact opposite.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  24. Hey, remember when dissent was patriotic? We knew that wouldn’t last. But really, let’s see here, it is a politician behaving in a shameful and hypocritical manner. Yeah, it’s wrong and outrageous, but it’s kind of the nature of the beast.

    The Clinton administration operated under similar rules. It is hardly surprising that Hilliary recreates that philosophy. For that matter, this move is a reincarnation of LBJ in some respects. This power battle between the two branches recycles itself every decade.

    sherlock (d77c52)

  25. BTW, there’s a huge difference between the Libyan ‘intervention’ (I apologize, but LOL) and, say, striking down Iran’s nuclear weapons program. One could be seen as authorized by resolutions for protecting Americans, after all. So again, you’re assuming these other ‘interventions’ (again, LOL) are not supported by the very principle some may find the Libyan mission falling short of.

    There IS a huge difference, Dustin, it’s in those four little letters, “NUKE”. That’s not just a “huge” difference, it’s a massive buttload of one.

    The PotUS IS authorized, without a doubt, to act unilaterally in connection to a direct threat to the USA.

    Libya does not represent that, and, having given up its weapons program, really does not have much chance of changing that.

    Iran gaining nukes DOES do so.

    So it could be rationally argued that a limited strike with (a) specific target(s) designed to remove a direct threat to American sovereignty and citizens is within the Constitutional power of the PotUS, even without Congress’s permission, though I’d prefer if such were obtained beforehand (it might not be practical, however, with leaks and such)

    Q.E.D. — That’s not just a “huge” difference, it’s a galaxy-sized one.

    =====
    P.S., yes, you might actually be able to argue that, by sheltering the terrorist that blew the Lockerbee plane out of the sky Kaddhafy has crossed a certain line, but, c’mon, let’s face it — that’s not why The Big 0 is there and everyone knows it.

    Apparently, he’s finally figured out that the world of international politics is one great big schoolyard, with lots of bullies and wannabe bullies, and they don’t respond to “talk” except to laugh at you derisively behind your back while they continue to do whatever it is you’re “talking” to them about (I’ll give him this, it’s only taken about 2 years… Carter STILL hasn’t figured it out).

    So, now he needs to get some street cred ao people will listen when he says ‘Jump!’ (Not saying they’ll jump, just that they’ll be likely to seriously consider if not jumping is worth the risk of a fight they’ll lose).

    Instead of bulking up in Afghanistan, however, and finishing THAT job, he’s trying to phone it in on the cheap, and backing us OUT of that job (which another surge would probably make a world of difference in, since it would show everyone that THIS PotUS actually has a spine, and they’d stop thinking “Paper Tiger” like they thought after Clinton) while lobbing missiles at Libya.

    What is going to happen is that the Dems will, from now on, lose on ALL international political issues, while the GOP will WIN on them.

    Because I’ll guarantee you that the GOP guy, whoever it is, who takes over in 2012 isn’t going to be one that will put up with this crap, and the first sign of BS, he’s going to stomp on it with both feet, and the rest of the world will be reminded that you don’t F*** with a Republican President.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  26. Thanks for making that point so clearly, igot.

    I don’t know what else there is to say. It’s not like I’m on Qaddafi’s side or unprincipled just because I realize this move, striking Libya, and leaving Iran alone, makes no sense for America. Or the constitution, as things stand.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  27. Dustin–you don’t fall into category 2. Category 2 is the people who are against it because they think it’s a bad idea, but are not bothered by the lack of Congressional approval. You fall into category 4: you think it’s a bad idea and you think Congressional authorization is an unavoidable requirement. You would be opposing it even if you thought bombing Libya was a good idea in and of itself. So, yes, that’s opposing it on principle.

    (And I’m calling it intervention because, frankly, there’s not a term that I can think of either understates or overstates whatever it is we are doing there.)

    Comment by IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society — 6/24/2011 @ 6:01 pm

    From the Constitutional aspect, I don’t think the fact that one country has nuclear weapons and the other does not makes any real difference.
    and the rest of the world will be reminded that you don’t F*** with a Republican President.
    Or, much more likely in my opinion, be reminded how limited American power actually is.

    JBS (510a0a)

  28. Politically, I’m what is technically known as a Crank. I tend to look at political issues, and think ALL the positions being argued are dung.

    Regarding this one;

    A) I would be in favor of shooting at Q’daffy’s minions (and Q’daffy himself, for that matter) – if only on the “step on a cockroach when you have the chance” principal – If I thought we were doing it in a way that would accomplish anything other than using up some expensive munitions.

    B) I think that the fastest way to get the War Powers Act repealed is to invoke it at every opportunity, until the twits in Congress decide it’s too much trouble and repeal it (This is how local Dry laws have gotten ditched in some places).

    C) I think that if the War Powers Act was seriously unconstitutional, by the somewhat sloppy standards of today’s judiciary, somebody would have seriously challenged it by now.

    D) I would be happier if Obama seemed to know what he was doing with Military force. I would be happier if he showed any sign of trying to play by the rule that his party put in place. I would be happier if he would come out flat footed and say “The War Powers Act is wrong, repeal it or impeach me.” I’m not picky, but I wish he would do SOMETHING other than flail around and pretend that he isn’t doing exactly what he IS doing. As matters stand, there isn’t a single thing about his position on Libya that I like.

    E) The Congressional Republicans are weenies. They want to have their cake and criticize it too. The Congressional Democrats are no better; the War Powers Act is an artifact of their Party. There ought to be at least ONE prominent Democrat who sees what Obama is doing as a lousy precedent if they want to invoke the Act against a Republican President in the future. Apparently they really CAN’T imagine anything beyond the next election.

    To sum up; Obama i clearly attacking a dictator, not because dictators are bad, but because he needs to add a little Macho to his image. He isn’t even managing THAT. His actions are foolish and stupid in just about every way they could be. The politicians criticizing his actions are being exactly as stupid, taking actions that have no meaning. The politicians supporting him are no better. The whole lot of them are not worth the oil that will be needed to fry them in Hell. I fully expect that Lucifer will turn them away from Hell’s Mouth Gate as He did Tomlinson (of the Kipling poem), and for about the same reason.

    “I see no worth in the hobnail mirth or the jolthead jest ye did,
    that I should awaken my Gentlemen who are sleeping three to a grid.”

    (Thomlinson, by Rudyard kipling)

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  29. CSP’s comment was excellent. Well said.

    JD (318f81)

  30. Dear Secretary Clinton,

    Go to hell, you worthless fucking c*nt.

    Allow me to quote Ken:

    You vulgar, upjumped, snake-oil-selling, midway-barker huckster. You venal, amoral, mendacious harpy. You vile, preening, scheming hack. Whose side am I on? I’m on the side of fuck you, bitch. I’m on the side of the Constitution, limited government, limited executive power to kill people, limited executive power to put our armed forces at risk, and the rule of motherfucking law. I can’t believe there was a time when I couldn’t grasp why people despised you. Whose side am I on? You Senator, can you name a nanosecond when you’ve ever been on anyone’s side but your own?

    Scott Jacobs (ff8f07)

  31. “But the bottom line is, whose side are you on?”

    Not yours.

    The last thing I want to do is to make a deal with a terrorist dictator already responsible for the murders of dozens of Americans, then turn around and double-cross him by attacking him, and then, after dropping bombs all over his minions, leave him in power so that he can carry out reprisals against American citizens…which is what these idiots in the Obama administration are doing.

    Obama (and ALL Democrats) should be removed from power by ANY MEANS NECCESSARY. They do not have the interests of this country, or the people in it, on their priority list, and it’s obvious as hell that they don’t.

    And, they’re grossly incompetent to boot.

    Dave Surls (30be6c)

  32. “any means” Dave?

    EricPWJohnson (d84fb0)

  33. What I would like is for the Republicans to be united. It’s amongst the many things that would never happen. But if they were, they could:

    Draw up articles of impeachment for violation of the War Powers Act.

    (Here’s the impossible part) Limit their statements in the house to, “The president is subject to the War Powers Act. President Obama, laws apply to you. You are in violation until you come to use with your request for further authorization.”

    And say nothing else. Vote it through, don’t push it, ignore it everwhere else. Whenever asked about it, just repeat the above statement. When it goes to the Senate, repeat the above statement, vote appropriately, let it lose if it loses.

    luagha (46a605)

  34. Dave, I do agree, it would be insane to leave Qaddafi in power at this point. He’s a mass murderer and he recently had a nuclear weapons program.

    We have to finish this.

    You’re certainly right that the Obama administration has done this completely wrong. I don’t think I could think of a way to do it any worse.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  35. ‘“any means” Dave?’

    Yup.

    Dave Surls (1ae4be)

  36. timmahizadork

    Icy Texan (64b5e7)

  37. Obama will keep K’daffy alive for as long as he thinks he can create a political problem for Republicans. Ultimately, he will kill K’daffy next summer, before the election, and force his Republican opponenet into a dilemma of supporting nation building and continued military involvment in Libya. The alternative will be to abandon a large mess that “America” created in Libya and the political aftermath in Libya can be blamed on the Republicans for allowing the jihadis to move in and take over in our absence.

    That’s most of it. There might be an element that is slightly off and one that should be added, but I think his interest in Libya is political and aimed at drawing the Republicans into a dilemma, not unlike the Democrats’ decision of neglecting to produce a budget.

    j curtis (e049ca)

  38. The Italians could have called it what it is: a WTF. This is an unapologetic attempt to assassinate the UN recognized leader of a sovereign nation. Not sure how that shakes out in international law.

    Aca Joe (062c40)

  39. We should supprt this endeavor by raising the taxes on people like Michael Mooreon.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  40. Back in 2002 David Frum (that’s *pious* in German/Yiddish) called out the paleoconservatives as ‘unpatriotic’ for not wanting to invade Mesopotamia.

    3500 American lives later, you guys are getting it.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  41. Dave

    35.‘“any means” Dave?’

    Yup.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 6/24/2011 @ 11:52 pm

    Please elaborate – I’m confused by your saying by any means…

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  42. stari

    when exactly did frum claim they were unpatriotic? citation please.

    And the word is iraq.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  43. Dave are you talking impeachment, recall or both?

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  44. dustin

    see, i have gotten to the other extreme. We have to rebuke the war, if only to re-assert the correct balance of power under the constitution.

    I hate to do it, and let that jagoff survive, but some things are more important than killing qdaffy.

    I mean I suppose if something radical happened, like Obama admitting he did wrong, and promising not to do it again, then I could recommend congress approving of this war. but right now, it would make congress look worse than impotent if they approved of it.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  45. the US was NOT involved in those hostilities, since our people are not in danger.

    We’re helping kill people, man. People are lying dead right now.
    How can you pretend the USA is not involved in hostilities?

    Using the same logical system that manages to say Communism works and the Stimulus helped boost the economy. Like, DUH.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  46. “Dave are you talking impeachment…”

    Or a reign of terror, accompanied by mass executions of liberal dirtbags.

    Whatever works.

    Dave Surls (3406b9)

  47. We have to rebuke the war, if only to re-assert the correct balance of power under the constitution.

    I hate to do it, and let that jagoff survive, but some things are more important than killing qdaffy.

    I understand you principles. And there are things more important than this old creepy bastard (who deserves to die, but so do many others).

    So if we shut this operation down, Presidents in the future will do it the Bush 43 way, and seek an AUMF, and with that, all the accountability and long term planning.

    Yeah, I can see this not only preserving that constitutional principle, but also making America safer in the long run.

    A half-assed effort in Libya that Obama will drop the second he thinks it suits him is not going ot give America the benefits OIF did.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  48. Back in 2002 David Frum (that’s *pious* in German/Yiddish) called out the paleoconservatives as ‘unpatriotic’ for not wanting to invade Mesopotamia.

    3500 American lives later, you guys are getting it.

    YOU, on the other hand, are a moron, because 10 years AND “3500 lives” later, you STILL don’t Get It.

    There was a distinct purpose in going into “Mesopotamia” after a dictator who expressly FUNDED the harm of Americans, encouraged others to do so, and was attempting to EXTEND his capacity to harm large quantities of Americans still further. And yes, even without “existing” ABC weapons, even the head IAEA investigator — hardly a Bush shill — granted that he was not less than six months from industrial-quantity manufacture of Anthrax and Botulin, from the day sanctions were removed.

    Given that he was misusing the Oil-for-Food money to buy off UN officials in a manner that made Enron look like two-bit chiseling pikers, those sanctions did not have long to last.

    That you probably still don’t even grasp that harming America was his primary purpose shows just how ridiculously nitwit stupid you are.

    The worst “similar” thing one can say about Khaddafi is that he’s been providing a place for the Lockerbee bomber. How long ago did -that- bombing occur? So Khaddafi was barely supporting our enemies in any significant regard… if we went after every nation that held ANYONE who’d ever done anything we’d be at open war with half the nations of Earth. And you might have noticed that Bush II scared the pants off of Khaddafi such that he’d already given up any and all substantiative efforts to fund ABC weapons. Naw, you didn’t notice THAT, right?

    Q.E.D., you, by attempting to equate Iraq with Libya are equating Apples with Boulders. Ergo, the assertion that you are a complete moron is pretty much demonstrably axiomatic.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  49. Aaron, the title of the essay is “Unpatriotic Conservatives” (I read it at the time but can’t bear to go through it again)

    http://old.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

    Now, you might have me in that usually editors give essays titles, but if they gave it that title, the sentiment is probably there.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  50. Koh and the rest did not argue there were not hostilities in Libya; they argued that the US was NOT involved in those hostilities, since our people are not in danger.

    So why the f*ck are we giving them hazard pay, you raging f*cktard???

    Scott Jacobs (8e9fca)

  51. So why the f*ck are we giving them hazard pay, you raging f*cktard???

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/26/2011 @ 8:16 pm

    Frankly, it’s pretty damn offensive to claim our troops and pilots and sailors are living a risk free life. Not that such a thing is a sane definition of ‘hostility’, but they are working very hard, and at real risk, because Obama ordered them to. And they signed up for that job and I don’t begrudge Obama his authority to command them, but that is part of why the congress should have some say.

    the more I think about it, the more I think Aaron is right.

    Dustin (c16eca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4078 secs.