Libya

[Townsend]

I am saddened that we have attacked Libya. I think it should be imperative that all Americans look very closely any time we bomb any country.

What event made the American military feel that it has to police the world?

Why do we go after bad guys in OPEC countries because of atrocities to the own people and completely ignore other dictators who do the same things (North Korea)? Is the reason oil?

I read that the first day of bombing cost us $160 million. The war in Iraq has been estimated to has cost $780 billion so far. How can we afford to be in a war in other countries?  

I have seen little justification on this war. I have seen plenty of criticism of Obama for not starting fast enough to doing anything. Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?

I'm with you.  I always think of the warning, "Eisenhower military industrial complex" and what I thought it represented.

[Teatownclown]

RM: "Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?"

Under hypnosis, anything may be possible. This is not the same man the country elected....

[Conan71]

RM: "Do you opponents of the President believe he just woke up and decided to bomb another country?"

Under hypnosis, anything may be possible. This is not the same man the country elected....

It's most definitely the man the country elected.  This is what happens when you elect a man with zero prior leadership experience, a lack of core principles, and/or the spine to stand on his core principles.

What did we really know about this relative political newcomer and how much did his handlers allow us to learn about him?  Not much, it was all about the image and lofty promises, not the resume.  I'm not disappointed because this is about what I'd expected.  The only real surprise for me was how he apparently got corrupted by the MIC. 

[Teatownclown]

It's most definitely the man the country elected.  This is what happens when you elect a man with zero prior leadership experience, a lack of core principles, and/or the spine to stand on his core principles.

What did we really know about this relative political newcomer and how much did his handlers allow us to learn about him?  Not much, it was all about the image and lofty promises, not the resume.  I'm not disappointed because this is about what I'd expected.  The only real surprise for me was how he apparently got corrupted by the MIC.  

You're wrong. He has core principles. Core POLITICAL principles. Corrupted and hypnotized seem interchangeable in this conversion.

Besides you're missing McCain/Palin, don't you believe all this will be good for the economies? Revive them the way WWII did for the 1930s? If anyone wants to draw cynical conclusions from that, then OK.

"No boots on the ground".....It's the latest catch phrase! And it's now "policy" or in other words, case precedent: Ronald Reagan

I think Obama will serve as default for all other choices in 12. He warned us that change was coming. He just did not tell us it was his change.

[Gaspar]

Oh Lord! I'm glad he's back.

[Conan71]

You're wrong. He has core principles. Core POLITICAL principles. Corrupted and hypnotized seem interchangeable in this conversion.

Besides you're missing McCain/Palin, don't you believe all this will be good for the economies? Revive them the way WWII did for the 1930s? If anyone wants to draw cynical conclusions from that, then OK.

"No boots on the ground".....It's the latest catch phrase! And it's now "policy" or in other words, case precedent: Ronald Reagan

I think Obama will serve as default for all other choices in 12. He warned us that change was coming. He just did not tell us it was his change.

I kept telling you Obama supporters you were going to get chump changed.

Unrest in the Middle East will not revive the economy.  Higher fuel and raw material prices will wreck it.  There's also not significant new jobs to be created within the MIC by adding one or two third world countries to our list of active conflicts.

[Hoss]

I kept telling you Obama supporters you were going to get chump changed.

Unrest in the Middle East will not revive the economy.  Higher fuel and raw material prices will wreck it.  There's also not significant new jobs to be created within the MIC by adding one or two third world countries to our list of active conflicts.

Problem was, the other team didn't have a viable candidate.  I mean, McCain was, until he let his handlers dictate who his running mate should be, instead of who he wanted it to be.  Can you imagine Palin one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Makes me shudder....

[sgrizzle]

Oops, dropped one:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397587/Libya-US-fighter-jet-crash-lands-in-field-near-Benghazi.html

[Conan71]

Problem was, the other team didn't have a viable candidate.  I mean, McCain was, until he let his handlers dictate who his running mate should be, instead of who he wanted it to be.  Can you imagine Palin one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Makes me shudder....

I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win.  The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.

[Hoss]

I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win.  The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.

Good point, but Pawlenty or even Liebermann would have been a damn sight better than Mama Grizzlie.  Especially after that disastrous media presence.

[Conan71]

Good point, but Pawlenty or even Liebermann would have been a damn sight better than Mama Grizzlie.  Especially after that disastrous media presence.

The whole strategy was stupid.  Why was the running mate being put up against Obama in the first place?  That's almost like saying it's a guarantee McCain wouldn't finish his term.  The other part was her trying to make it sound like a 1/2 term governor with a muddled educational background was somehow any better equipped to run  the country.

Lieberman would have been as bad a pick as it would have splintered off some factions in the party who would be pissed McCain didn't pick a Republican as a running mate.  Those disaffected voters wouldn't have voted for Obama, they simply would have not voted.

Pure and simple: the GOP did NOT want the White House in '08.  They knew the next two years were going to be Hell.  Why take all the blame with an impatient America while you could sit back suffer through two years of reduced power, call everything President Obama and the Democrats were doing a failure and start a resurgence in '10 then take the WH back in 2012 for another eight years.  If McCain had won, the GOP would have been slaughtered down to near nothing in the legislative branch in the 2010 election.  It was a tactical move and McCain was a willing accomplice.  

As it turned out, the GOP was able to point to the "failed policies" of the prior two years and we know the result.  How would they have campaigned around that with McCain in the White House trying to bolster the numbers in Congress.  Simply could not have happened in near as dramatic fashion.

That's my take anyhow.  Take that with a grain of salt or a tinfoil hat, what ever you are comfortable with.

[guido911]

I'm still not sure anyone the GOP put up was going to win.  The Dems would have tied any candidate the GOP put up to President Bush one way or another and let's face it, by Aug of '08, we'd all had enough of that.

So we get stuck with perhaps the least qualified, least experienced, and least leading president since I have been able to vote. Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.

[Gaspar]

We got a bumper sticker. . ."Anyone but Bush."

As my avatar implies, President Obama is Bush's fault!

[Gaspar]

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today on the contrasts between Iraq and Libya.

As bombs started falling on Libya Saturday, blogger Glenn Reynolds noticed something striking: "Hey, it's exactly 8 years to the day since Bush started bombing Iraq!" Eight years--which is to say, Barack Obama ordered the bombing of an Arab dictatorship at precisely the same point in his presidency that George W. Bush did.

Of course, there were some differences. The Libya war is new; the Iraq one was an escalation of a conflict that had been under way for 12 years. The U.N. Security Council had authorized action in Libya for the first time two days earlier, vs. 17 times in Iraq.

Bush had persuaded a large majority of the public that escalating the war was a good idea; Obama had to act more quickly, without making a sustained case to either the public or Congress.

Also, Bush made his announcement from the Oval Office.  His successor spoke at the White House on Friday, but by the time the bombs started falling, he was in--of all places--Brazil. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214623509564818.html?KEYWORDS=james+taranto

[RecycleMichael]

Now, back to bashing Palin because we need a distraction/straw man to hide behind.

Sarah Palin just wishes she had the attention that Charlie Sheen is getting.