Patterico's Pontifications

“My labradoodle spends more time thinking about where to lie down that Obama thought about Libya…”

Hilarious.

SPQR (26be8b) — 3/26/2011 @ 10:57 am

Can … he … not … just … eat … his … effing … WAFFLE?!

Icy Texan (b75196) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:21 am

“Iraq and Libya”

Basically the same thing.

In both cases we fight regimes that have attacked the United States with their conventional forces, and with terrorist proxies (as well as terrorists working directly for the regimes). This is the ONLY issue of any importance.

And, in both cases we stalled and delayed for years before we started getting serious about beating the crap out of the offending regimes…that’s assuming we’re getting serious about taking out K-daffy, that is.

Dave Surls (7344d4) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:32 am

NO ONE in a position of power is serious about ‘taking out’ GayDaffy.

Icy Texan (b75196) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:42 am

this is just a hugely expensive exercise in our coward president’s quest to craft a narrative of an attack dog America what says how high when the UN says jump

It’s embarrassing, and anyone what has to go through the rest of his career in the armed forces prancing around with an Odyssey Dawn patch might as well just put on a dress.

happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:48 am

“NO ONE in a position of power is serious about ‘taking out’ GayDaffy.”

I agree that’s not a primary motivation for guys like Obama. He couldn’t care less whether Americans are killed by terrorists, except insofar as it affects his ability to keep and hold power…his words and deeds over the years make that perfectly obvious.

But I’m guessing, there’s a good chance the Libyan regime is going to be destroyed anyway, and I don’t much care what the motivation is…as long as the Libyan regime gets the snot beat out of it.

Dave Surls (7344d4) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:48 am

I wish I wasn’t on a 56k dial-up. It’s going to take me two hours to watch the You-tube thingy.

Dave Surls (7344d4) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:51 am

I wish that I shared your optimism, Dave.

But I don’t.

Icy Texan (b75196) — 3/26/2011 @ 12:20 pm

the absolute silence among my liberal FB friends on this subject is darkly amusing, but then again, i always laugh at hypocrisy… 8)

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/26/2011 @ 1:23 pm

‘International air strikes on Libya have forced government troops to retreat, with rebels regaining control of the city of Ajdabiya.’

‘The fall of the eastern gateway urban centre followed a week of coalition action against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s military, which included missile strikes by RAF Tornados on Thursday and Friday.’

‘The rebel victory in Ajdabiya dealt a blow to the regime, which acknowledged that the air strikes had forced its troops to withdraw and accused international forces of choosing sides in the fight.’

‘This is the objective of the coalition now. It is not to protect civilians because now they are directly fighting against the armed forces,” deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim said in Tripoli. “They are trying to push the country to the brink of a civil war.’–UKPA

Don’t give up hope just yet. There’s a reasonable chance that K-daffy will be driven out of power, and his regime will be destroyed. And, for sure the airstrikes are causing him all kinds of grief.

Dave Surls (7344d4) — 3/26/2011 @ 2:09 pm

For fun, bring up Syria and ask: “If we are going to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Kadaffi from killing rebels, what do we do when Assad starts killing protesters?”

Kevin M (298030) — 3/26/2011 @ 5:55 pm

They won’t go after Kadaffi because they worry that Kadaffi will go after them, and that’s a risk they don’t want to take. Better that thousands of others die than the Masters of the Universe feel threatened.

Kevin M (298030) — 3/26/2011 @ 5:57 pm

Barack Obama views Assad’s Syria as bringing a necessary balance in the region for to reign in Israel I think he will do everything in his power to preserve the status quo

happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/26/2011 @ 5:58 pm

remember Barack Obama and his woman worshiped in a church of Israel hate for many many years at the end of the day Barack Obama will have his Israel-hating buddies’ backs I think

happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:02 pm

Kevin M @ 11,

That train (“…Assad starts killing protesters.”) has already left the station. And, frankly, taking down Assad does more for the long term interests of the United States than anything we’re likely to accomplish in Libya.

Rodney G. Graves (f12db5) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:03 pm

Okay, I watched this, and laughed, and thought it was a pretty good parody of the “typical” leftist.

But don’t think this kind of thing makes any converts. Putting stupid words into the mouth of a CGI straw-man (or -woman) isn’t going to persuade anyone who’s undecided, much less anyone who’s already on the left.

A liberal friend send me a similar video, supposedly of a (progressive and clever) lawyer interviewing a (stupid and venal) Tea Partier. My friend thought it was funny because he’s already steeped in the dark brew of liberal cynicism and he really believes that Republicans are evil. He was disappointed when I said I really didn’t find it very clever at all, not even up to Olbermannesque standards in its ridicule. He’d have exactly the same reaction, with good reason, if I sent him this video.

The best way to persuade is not to mischaracterize the other side’s arguments, but to grapple with them, clarify them, and then rebut them in detail. Some of our opponents can indeed manage a better argument than “Obama is awesome!” Pretending otherwise does our cause no service.

Beldar (a197ec) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:49 pm

‘Some of our opponents can indeed manage a better argument than “Obama is awesome!”’

I can hardly wait ’til I hear one.

Dave Surls (7434c9) — 3/26/2011 @ 8:50 pm

I took it as a parody of the usual debating skills of progressive trolls seen on conservative sites.

Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/26/2011 @ 8:55 pm

A Democrat is president so it’s okay, I think it’s more enjoyable (if not more profitable) to sit back and watch the progressives turn on the party-line Democrats than join in really.

This could be the true beginning of the end for Obama and the Left, with what’s happened before being the beginning and the end of the beginning =)
He has started a war. Sure, he tried to make it look like it was Sarko and those right-wing Tories that dragged him into it, and that Hilary “convinced” him, but this guy is a cold calculating political machine. He made the final decision, no doubt in large part because of the hope, misguided as usual, that it would score him some cheap points in the job approval ratings and/or with the “center” and moderate Republicans. It has the added benefit of actually being the right decision, but that doesn’t matter to the Left or probably to the President.

What is he going to campaign on to get “progressives” to come out for him in 2012? “I’ll keep protecting ObamaCare” or “I’ll fight to bring it back”? That will get him killed with independents and moderates. Tensions are just going to keep on rising with Iran and the Mideast in general. What’s he going to say, “We only got involved in one war, see? I am improvement on Bush, come on Code Pink don’t be mad at me!”

On the issue of public unions he’s decided to back his base over courting the middle’s and right’s opinion; how many times can he keep doing that, while also doing things like attacking Libya? Can he maintain a balance, pissing off just not enough people on every side to get re-elected?

Judging by what’s gone so far, no, and hopefully no. No guarantees, but this Administration hasn’t gotten good marks for competence, that’s for sure.

As for how amazing his campaign was, was it really? It was great at mobilizing voters who were ready to be mobilized by someone, almost anyone. After Hilary got beat and Biden came in, all of a sudden the Obama campaign started sounding decidedly Clintonian. Hilary’s gone in 2012. Maybe… to challenge Obama? Why is she leaving as SecState? Either way, he isn’t going to have Billy Jeff and his cronies doing all the thinking for him next time around. And among other things, one Billy Jeff was really quite good at was winning elections.

DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/26/2011 @ 10:16 pm

Beldar–

The argument I tend to get is “who are we to impose our will on the world”, often followed by “we’re no better.” The first is a reasonable argument, the second misses most of the plot of the 20th century.

Kevin M (298030) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:55 pm

The first is a reasonable argument

Damned mission creep. Beating the USSR involved lots of it and in many parts of the world the political and economic circumstances are still dictated by the fact that only 20 years ago they were saluting a Red Star and there’s plenty of Commies left around. So now we have this impression that we “imposed our will” in a bad way (which we have done sometimes no doubt).

If some Leftist tried to say that to me about Iraq for example, I’d say, “what does the world have to do with a dispute between Iraq and the US, exactly? We’re imposing our will on Iraq. Where does the world come in? Just because they don’t like it?”

They of course would say yes and I’d want to bang my head (or theirs) against the table.

DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/27/2011 @ 12:09 am

“This could be the true beginning of the end for Obama and the Left…”

Not likely.

Obama is obviously a fat hypocrte and a pathological liar, like most liberals.

But, as long as they dispense “free” handouts, liberals will continue to win most of the elections…just like they’ve been doing since the 1930s.

Dave Surls (ecd341) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:44 am

Some of our opponents can indeed manage a better argument than “Obama is awesome!”

Yes here’s a sampling:

“Another grim milestone.”
“Bush lied, people died!”
“No Blood for Oil!”
“Impeach Bush!”

Teh Dave (60a68a) — 3/27/2011 @ 10:23 am

Here’s one: Libya in 2011 is not like Iraq in 2003 but is like Iraq would have been if the US had intervened in 1988. Libya isn’t an imminent threat to us; but the government is an imminent threat to a large percentage of its own population who decided to try to overthrow their dictator. Intervening now prevents a disaster from befalling them in the same way that intervening in the other cases I mentioned would have.

That said, President Obama needs to go to Congress now. He should have done so already. Each passing day makes the sin worse.

aphrael (9802d6) — 3/27/2011 @ 10:44 am

Forgot to add

Bush is Hitler.

RACIST!

I must bid you adieu.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/27/2011 @ 11:01 am

But, as long as they dispense “free” handouts, liberals will continue to win most of the elections…just like they’ve been doing since the 1930s.

Liberals didn’t win most of the elections since the 1930s, Republicans varying from moderate (Eisenhower, Ford) to conservative (Reagan), and conservative Democrats (Kennedy, Eisenhower) won all the presidential elections with the exception of Carter, who ran as a conservative and was more of a muddle as President than the hard liberal he’s become since.

Congress was dominated by conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans from 1946 to 1994.

The only time liberal Democrats have consistently won national elections was during the 1930s and World War II, and other than that 2006 and 2008.

DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/27/2011 @ 5:54 pm

Kennedy, Eisenhower should be Kennedy, Johnston, and throw Billy Jeff in there too. Johnson may have added insult to injury with the Great Society, but he was a cultural conservative and a “neo-con” in his FP.

DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/27/2011 @ 5:56 pm

Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were…conservatives???????

Man, that makes my brain hurt.

The liberals own this place. And, they have for a long, long time.

That’s why things are the way they are, with governments in this country now sucking up about 40% of GDP.

And, what’s more, it’s a lead pipe cinch, that we’re going to get even more liberal as time goes on. Wait ’til Obama gets done, government spending will be around 50%, I’ll bet, and then we’ll be halfway to full-blown socialism.

Dave Surls (4eba4b) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:58 pm

“Here’s one: Libya in 2011 is not like Iraq in 2003 but is like Iraq would have been…etc.”

Like I said.

Can’t wait ’til I hear one.

Dave Surls (4eba4b) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:01 pm

Jon Stewart is better, and much more funny since it’s based on an absurd reality not an absurd fantasy. Your Obamabot is a figment of your imagination.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages

You confuse Obama with liberals. I wish I were confusing you with the rest of the conservative movement. Sad to say I’m not.

bernard F. (d80b5a) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:17 am

bernard F., and you confuse your comment with a coherent one.

SPQR (26be8b) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:27 am

“Bernard” is Yelverton, the cowardly racist midget plagiarizing hilljack.

JÐ (d56362) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:30 am

Dave Surls: the characterization of Clinton is an exemplar of how conservatives and liberals live in different worlds.

From the standpoint of liberals, Clinton was a center-right politician. Welfare reform, NAFTA, DADT => all of these were not left-wing ideas and were not supported by leftists.

From the standpoint of conservatives, Clinton was a center-left politician.

aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 11:23 am

SPQR, JD,
Don’t argue with me, argue with the very liberal and very popular Jon Stewart.

aphrael,
Well said.

bernard F. (d80b5a) — 3/28/2011 @ 11:27 am

Why are you such a coward, Yelverton?

JÐ (822109) — 3/28/2011 @ 11:34 am

Republicans varying from moderate (Eisenhower, Ford

Ford? What Presidential election did he win?

Some chump (4c6c0c) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:18 pm

Aphrael you know damn well Clinton was far-left but only supported those things because it was convenient for him but you knew that.

BTW wasn’t aware NAFTA was a conservative idea.

Bernard F. is a coke head.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:19 pm

Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it” before he was elected, much as Obama promised to cut the deficit.

In 1996, he had proposed no welfare reform, so the GOP passed two welfare reform bills that he vetoed. The main reason he did not veto it a third time was because it was campaign season and the issue was becoming a major liability for Clinton.

In no way shape or form is it fair to credit Clinton with welfare reform. He claimed it was a fulfilled promise, and campaigned on that claim, so it’s repeated quite a lot as though this was Clinton’s initiative rather than something he called too conservative after two prior vetoes.

After signing the bill, Clinton immediately called on congress to reverse two parts of the legislation (regarding food stamps and TANF assistance to recent immigrants).

Yes, some democrats raised holy hell anyway, positioning themselves as to the left of Clinton while Clinton deftly positioned himself as though he was the welfare reformer.

Hey, I’m not complaining. Clinton was a hell of a lot better as a president than Obama is mainly because he tried so hard to appeal to as many voters as he could. We could do a lot worse than Clinton, and we did.

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:31 pm

DohBiden, free trade is the original liberal (now known as “conservative”) issue. The Anti Corn Law League turned into the Liberal Party, which is the ancestor of today’s conservative/libertarian movement. For a Democrat to support free trade is a big deal. And remember that Clinton relied on the GOP to pass NAFTA, because the majority of his own party rejected it.

Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:33 pm

bernard F. – They really miss you over at Protein Wisdom. Hi Joe.

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:38 pm

bernard f. … or should I say Kilgore Trout!

Queue dramatic chipmunk

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:43 pm

DohBiden, I suspect that you aren’t aware that “free trade” is considered a conservative idea by the far left because you don’t talk to people on the far left. The far left is full of people who consider corporations to be the greatest enemy of a free people, and who consider free trade to be about empowering corporations (or, more realistically, capital) at the expense of workers.

Within the Democratic party, support for free trade comes generally from educated professionals in knowledge industries; it’s generally opposed by activist groups which are closely aligned with the poor or with labor.

Milhouse is entirely correct in his brief history of free trade as an idea.

aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:54 pm

Also, DohBiden: no, Clinton was not from the far left. His roots were in the conservative wing of the party; he was aligned with the DLC, which was founded after the 1984 election ont he premise that the Democratic party had moved too far to the left in the 1970s and early 1980s and was doomed to continue losing elections unless it moved back to the center. Among progressives, the organization is held up today as the epitomy of all that is wrong with DINOs.

The standard-bearers of the left wing of the party, in the 1992 primary, were Jerry Brown (who ran an absurd campaign as an “outsider”) and Tom Harkin.

aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:58 pm

3/26/2011

Xtranormal: A Water-Cooler Debate on Iraq and Libya

43 Responses to “Xtranormal: A Water-Cooler Debate on Iraq and Libya”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out