Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”
The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

46 comments:

Jocelyn said...

I'm just going to repeat what we all already know. But it's frustrating that Bush and Obama did similar things, yet Bush was criticized and called Hitler. But when Obama does it, it's the right thing to do. Liberals are such hypocrites.

AndrewPrice said...

Jocelyn, I agree completely. It drives me nuts as well. Obama's justification for Libya was something Bush also gave as a justification for Iraq and yet, that little piece is enough to make Obama a hero and yet somehow makes Bush a criminal? I'm honestly sick of liberals. I no longer believe they engage in politics in good faith.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Shepard Smith at Fox wisely calls these things the "not wars" in order to point out the hypocrisy. If it turns out right, Obama is the hero, and if it doesn't, well, he never went to war. I don't think the American people are going to eat the propaganda salad.

One thing I'd like to see come out of this is grabbing the Lockerbie bomber, and hanging him from the highest point in Tripoli. It's only fair, he was supposed to have died over two years ago anyway. We should dress him up in a kilt for the hanging.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's a great way to expose the hypocrisy, because that's exactly how it goes. If it doesn't work, then it wasn't a way and Obama really didn't want to be involved... if it does, then he's Napoleon reincarnated and you should vote him because he's our greatest warlord ever.

I'm frankly sick of it. I'm sick of the blatant hypocrisy and the self-righteousness.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, while we're at it, we should also air-mail his corpse to Edinburgh, and by "air mail" I mean "drop out of a plane flying over the government buildings at the time."

By the way, what is going on Libya precisely? Forget what kind of government will take over; anyone wanna place bets on whether Qaddafi is still in the country anymore?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I prefer to see him put into a tank with vicious unfed turtles and let them maul him to death.

What's going on in Libya you ask? Why.... paradise. The Libyans are about to create the world's first, most perfect direct Democracy (and Obamocracy) and they will only do good things and be good people from now on. And there will be unicorns! :-)

At least, that's what the MSM is saying. What did you think was happening?

Tam said...

In case you missed it, Dear Leader has a better foreign policy/military/C-in-C record than Ronald Reagan. Just ask Howard Dean.

"he’s getting our troops out of Iraq. They’ll be almost all gone by the end of this year, if not all of them. The Afghan war is being drawn down. Osama bin Laden is dead and Muammar Gaddafi is on his way out. Nobody’s had a foreign policy record like that since — I don’t know how far back you’d have to go. Not Ronald Reagan, not George W. Bush. Nobody. I don’t know, you’d have to go back to Harry Truman before — or Franklin Roosevelt before you get a record like that.”

So just hush, you domestic terrorist/hostage taker. Hush.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I did miss that, which is good or I would be pretty angry.

So lying about getting troops out of Iraq (which was over when Obama became president), losing in Afghanistan, and watching a bunch of rebels beat a dictator is better than defeating the Soviet Union and freeing a billion people from communist oppression?

Dean is an ass.

Let me also say that I don't see the public buying this. You can't start a pointless war, let someone else win it, and then claim to be a great general -- especially when the American people already see you as an indecisive coward who doesn't know what he's doing. And that's Obama.

Also, let me add, that once again, it's clear that the Democrats politicize wars and terrorism. Stinking hypocrites.

AndrewPrice said...

By the way, did anyone see that Huntsman (who this weekend attacked the Republican Party using the Democratic playbook) declared that he would be open the being Bachmann's Vice President?

Give me a break. He would be better suited as Obama's vice president.

Ed said...

Andrew, Excellent list. I read a quote a couple months ago from some leftist MSM journal that had the nerve to say "politics used to stop at the water's edge until the Tea Party came along." Uh? F-you. The Democraps have been politicizing foreign policy for as long as I remember. They attacked Reagan, Bush and Bush II for everything they did overseas, usually accusing them of "crimes" and of "exploiting" the deaths of soldiers, and then they turned right around and tried to declare Clinton and Obama as great warriors. It really pisses me off.

Ed said...

Howard Dean is an idiot and should not be allowed to speak publicly.

Huntsman is also an idiot and should not be allowed to speak publicly. If any Republican puts him on the ticket, I swear I will vote for a third party.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: I take a line from those great philosophers, The Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." So forgetting what the new government will be like makes perfect sense. LOL

They've broken into the Qaddafi compound, and no sign of him so far. Maybe Geraldo Rivera knows where his secret hiding place is.

I like your idea better than mine. Air mail, indeed.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I recall that too. Reagan committed a "crime" in Nicaragua and Iran. He was "stupid" to send troops to Beirut. It was "criminal" to attack Libya and Grenada. Thatcher was a "war criminal" for defending the Falklands and we were "stupid" and "criminal" for "causing it." Then there were missiles in Europe, Star Wars, etc. etc. In every case, Reagan was stupid or criminal.

Bush didn't get it as badly, but the talk was similar.

Then they unleashed on Bush II, with people like Pelosi calling him "stupid" and others actively trying to get foreign judges (in Spain) to declare him a war criminal.

But Obama stars a war that has nothing to do with us for reasons that he never explains and suddenly he's a great warlord? Clinton lobs a missile at a babyfood factory in Kenya while letting al Qaeda blow up our embassies and ships and yet he's a great warlord?

It's despicable.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, LOL! T-Rav is probably too young to recall that little debacle... Al Capone's vault! Dum dum dum!!!!

Odds are Qaddafi is heading for a border or a plane to fly him somewhere like Sudan.... another Obama failure.

CrispyRice said...

If I were the WY highway patrol, I would indeed be worried!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, I think they're a match for our Warlord in Chief. LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Okay, so I just had a new experience - my first earthquake.

AndrewPrice said...

Really? In New York City? I didn't think that was geologically possible?

AndrewPrice said...

Apparently, D.C. just had a 6.0 Earthquake too!

Either (1) the Sci-Fi Channel was right all along or (2) Qaddafi fired his earthquake gun.

BevfromNYC said...

We are on a faultline and there a undetectable earthquakes occasionally, but this one was a 5.8! Our building shook for about 10 seconds. Always good in an emergency, I could be heard exclaiming "Holy Crap, we're having an earthquake!" No one believed me. They evacuated the Capital building in DC. Reports are that it was centered in Virginia.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Apparently they're evacuating the Pentagon too. That's going to be chaos in DC. I haven't heard anything about any damage, but 5.8 sounds pretty large to me?

LawHawkRFD said...

Awm c'mon, team. A 6.0?! When we have a 6.0 here, everybody looks around and asks if somebody dropped some silverware. LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Fox doesn't seem to be reporting any injuries or damage, so it doesn't sound serious.

They just said it hit near Richmond.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I don't mean to be too light about this. If I were in a place like NYC and had never experienced an earthquake, I know I might be thinking of something entirely different. We have 20 quakes every year here that are 4.5 to 5.0, and 6.0 every five years or so. I live practically on top of the Tehachapi Fault, which had a great quake in 1952 that is estimated at 7.3. I was a little kid at the time, and we lived nearly 90 miles away, but it was strong enough to move my bed completely across the floor of my bedroom and put a big crack down the center of our living room ceiling. I only woke up long enough to tell my dad to go away and quit shaking my bed.

The serious side of this is that we have lived with earthquakes so long that we build accordingly. The east coast doesn't.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Fox said that there are over 150 6.0 quakes in the US each year, so they couldn't be that bad or we would hear more about them.

From what I'm seeing, there is no damage and no injuries, but they need to inspect millions of buildings, bridges and subways now.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: For clarification, when I said "here" I meant specifically the area close to my house in Caliente. California has a great many more than that every year. According to the earthquake center in Pasadena, here in the Tehachapi mountains we're overdue for a 6.5 or higher.

rlaWTX said...

I just heard about the quake - yikes. I think the evacuations are going to be worse on the area around DC than the quake!

as for the rest, I think that both T-Rav & Ed have some fine ideas!!

(I remember the Vault opening! It was awesome!! I'm pretty sure that I haven't voluntarily watched Geraldo since...)

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That sounds pleasant -- looking forward to the next 6.5 coming your way.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It's going to be chaos. Dumping all those people out onto the streets at the same time will tie traffic up for hours! I also heard on FOX that they were talking about shutting down the Metro for fear of aftershocks. What a mess!

I thought the vault show was great, personally. It all turned into a joke when the vault was empty, but until that time, Geraldo had millions of people glued to their television sets waiting to see what he found. I was definitely watching.

T-Rav said...

You okay Bev?

I didn't feel anything; they said it was felt in Indianapolis, so it's possible it could have been here in Mississippi, but I was in class at the time and no one noticed a thing.

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk - I understand. Our buildings are built for hurricane winds, not earthquakes. But it works to our advantage because there's plenty of sway in the buildings too. In high winds the building creaks loudly, but to feel the building moving is just unnerving...

T-Rav said...

Okay, someone is going to have to explain this "Capone's vault" thing to me.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Geraldo has an interesting history. At one point he was a relatively serious journalist (though also a muckracker). He was on 20/20 and generally came up with interesting stories, even though he was a leftist.

Then he became quasi-Jerry Springer. Phil Donoahue was the king of the genre at the time, though Oprah was closing fast, and Jerry Springer was just starting. Geraldo got his own show and placed it right between the two substance-wise... lots of "gay nuns on dope" and "my kid is a skinhead."

Around that time Geraldo's reputation really started to crash. Before it collapsed though, he did an investigation and supposedly discovered Al Capone's "secret vault." They did a prime time special and everything where they were going to open it.

As America watched, Geraldo had some workmen break through the wall and discover that there was indeed a vault. Then they opened it and found. . . a coke bottle. LOL!

After that, he focused on being Oprah for a while before Fox took him and made him back into a quasi-serious journalist. He also seems to have jumped a good deal to the right at that point.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. The whole Al Capone's vault fiasco became a bit of a national joke at that point. You would hear people use the term whenever some search for something didn't go right... "better call Geraldo" or "it was like finding Al Capone's vault."

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: If it keeps up, you'll get used to it. I was at the top of the Fairmont Tower during one quake in San Francisco, and the chandeliers swung entirely up to the ceiling then back again to the other side and hit the ceiling again there. To top it off, it's called the Venetian Room, and it rotates to provide tourists with a panoramic view of The City. Between shaking and spinning, the only thing left to do was to order another martini. LOL

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Or throw up! LOL!

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I don't believe it. Geraldo a quasi-serious journalist? Nah.

Glad to see no one's been hurt or anything by the quake. I've only felt one tremor, which was a mild aftershock a few years ago. I live (when I'm not in school) near the New Madrid fault, which almost tore North America apart 600 million years ago and gave the country a pretty big shake a couple centuries back. Made the Mississippi run backwards for three days. And it still gives us a few moderate shakes once in a while.

Individualist said...

Andrew Great Summation....

I will state however that there is one marked difference between Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. That being that we actually made the decision to put boots on the ground in those two countries and have only coordinated bombing runs in Libya (for the most part).

If we think about it this was the Clinton Iraq policy. Just maintain a no fly zone and control the government with air superiority. But the real question is what does this mean...

I think that if we don't go into Libya and we probably won't then we will find the government that arises there is really less free than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong but Obama took this step because he thought it was easy.

Of course Qaddafi is not dead yet and if he manages to hold on like the guy who did not want to go on the cart in Monty Python and the Holy Grail well you may find that this becomes worse than IRaq.

It looks like Qaddaffi is cooked but then again we are not truely there ensuring he is removed. It appears to me we are playing games with Libya because we feel that the rebels can eventually take over. This is to my mind an unwise strategic decision. If it were me I'd make sure what's left of Seal Team 6 take Qaddafi down as quick as possible. But then I don't see fighting wars with diplomacy in mind, just eliminating the enemy.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's true. At one point, Geraldo was almost respected. Strange huh?

Sounds like you should buy a canoe or something and put it in your backyard... just in case?

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I too think that Obama took this step because he thought it was easy. I think he figured this would be a cake walk and he could hand off control to the Euros and then he could claim credit if it worked and avoid credit if it didn't. It was a free gamble, with the prize being the ability to claim that he's a "freedom fighter."

In terms of being different from Afghanistan, this was the same strategy Bush used when we originally started over there -- just bombings mixed with a small number of special ops guys to coordinate what was going on. It wasn't until later that we sent in the ground troops and made a mess of it by trying to control the uncontrollable.

I think the government in Libya will be an ugly ethnic government, that's my guess. It also wouldn't surprise me if the country broke apart as a result.

I actually think sending ground troops is a bad idea because this isn't our war. I'm not crediting Obama with being smart for not sending them -- I think he's acted cowardly and stupid, but I just think we have no reason to get involved and we shouldn't sacrifice American lives in yet another civil war between thugs.

In terms of Qaddafi himself, I'm pretty sure he's finished. He may find a home somewhere like Sudan, but he's not the kind of guy who will bother to come back to try to make trouble. So either he's dead, will be captured soon, or will make himself disappear. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing, we just won't know for some time. And no matter how it turns out, it's unlikely that this will affect us much -- unless they become a base for future terrorists. So in the end, this isn't a "win" for us, it can at best be a "not a loss" for us.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I don't worry about it. If The Big One (as we call it) hits, and I'm there when it does, that'll just be the end of me and everyone else in the area. Depending on where we are, we'll be either buried by a landslide or the soil will turn to quicksand underneath us, and that's all there is to it.

It's so weird to think of Geraldo as a professional journalist.

rlaWTX said...

I think geraldo was the only one that really took him seriously. I seem to remember him being the "hispanic" voice type of "professional" "journalist"... Then it all went kaplooey! In there somewhere he did war corresponding, didn't he? still managed to make it all about him, as I recall...

glad all is well on the eastern front... and I have since read that the whole Pentagon didn't evac, just areas... hopefully everyone gets home no later than usual...

I have to go to class now - I really really really enjoyed taking the summer off... < sigh >

and I really really really dislike BHO.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's the spirit! LOL! I'm building a hovercraft just in case. ;-)

Actually, we seem to be pretty stable out here. I'm not aware of any fault lines in the area or any history of earthquakes. Our big thing was that with NORAD and Space Command and the Air Force Academy here, we were at the top of the nuclear target list.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, You are not alone in your dislike of BHO.

Yeah, Geraldo has always taken himself a lot more seriously than everyone else took him. And early on, he was definitely into Hispanic issues. But he was rather famous at the time he ended up on 20/20, which was still pretty reputable at that point.

Have fun in class.

T-Rav said...

Stay strong rla! I just started back yesterday, and had a class this afternoon on "History of the Body," which is about the gendering of human bodies through history and how that displays power relations or something. On a totally unrelated note, does anyone know if it's possible to chug just enough bleach that it only destroys the parts of your memory you want destroyed?

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, They have a pill for that. It's in liquid form and is sold at most liquor stores.

"History of the Body" huh? Wow. Talk about a worthless idea. If someone told me they teach that, I honestly don't think I could keep from bursting out laughing.

Post a Comment