Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Oh so Bush gets to go to war first

I sense a trend developing although conservative commentary is still young on the matter and that is a growing conservative criticism of Obama over our actions in Libya. Savage last night said why are we there yada yada kind of the usual reverse liberal criticisms of Bush's adventures in Iraq. Political fault lines -- when Bush went to war>good, when Obama goes to war>bad. Neocons are the only consistent bunch of the group, apparently they never met a war they didn't like. I get the sense that John McCain always wants to go to war. Liberals apparently never see a war as being morally justified even if the standard being used is helping an oppressed and persecuted people which to me is a kind of a liberal paradox or conundrum since they're against those people being oppressed and persecuted in the first place just not helping them out via war (alternative, singing Kumbaya?). Sure it doesn't help that Obama and members of his administration are saying contradictory things. Now the president says it's official U.S. policy that Khadafy must go and that Ham guy, that commander over there says he can see him remaining in power and even though he's not a member of Team Obama let's throw in that British defense minister who pretty much has come out for assassinating Khadafy. It'd be nice if everyone were on the same page and I've been meaning to say a word or two about assassinations as it applies to foreign leaders. Reagan signed an Executive Order against this and I've read at least one conservative commentator say all Obama has to do is rescind this order with the stroke of a pen and I guess then the CIA can then go in with a poison cigar like they tried to do with Castro or maybe they can put a black mamba or box jelly in his tub where he cavorts with that sensuous nurse. It's all mind-numbingly stupid commentary as once you allow certain albeit extremely narrow exceptions for assassinating foreign leaders, heads of state (e.g. the guy's a monster and eats people or he raped a caravan of nuns) then what do you say years down the road when someone advocates assassination using the rationale Prime Minister XYZ is bad for the global economy or is just an all-around sucky guy who's bringing us down because he makes his population make baseballs for well below any decent standard of living wages? You see it's like this, once you allow moral exceptions or put it another way, the law against murder is ironclad, you can't just off your spouse because he or she cheated on you with the UPS guy but that's a moral philosophy course for another day. Now if they hit Khadafy's tent where he entertains folk, well they might deem it some type of military installation because he has a toy helicopter in there and a DVD copy of Hogan's Heroes so there be a very fine line ya know? I've one word to soapie though,

LOCKERBIE

14 comments:

  1. Conservatives hated Clinton. Liberals hated Bush. Conservatives hate Obama. It's all cyclic and we see politics through the prism of defending our team.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Much is being made of a war on three fronts now (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). I see it this way, three is alot, granted, so which one of the three could we have done without (I know you would say all of them) but I'd have to go with Iraq. The rationale for Iraq was WMD's, they weren't there. The rationale for Afghanistan was 9/11, certainly more of a connection than Saddam Hussein so that made sense (of course the non-interventionist type would say do nothing but what kind of option is that?). Now the reasons for Libya seem quite strong: crimes against humanity and Khadafy and this is going way back of course but Khadafy was responsible for the tragedy of Lockerbie and gave the go-ahead and scores of Americans died on that plane (unless you don't get mad about these sorts of things which is what absolutely amazes me about current conservative blog-commentary on the air assault on Libya). Yup, time for conservatives to man up and say Iraq was a foreign policy mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You parrot the libs when you say there were no WMDs in Iraq, but you seem to forget that other countries also thought Saddam had WMDs, and the intelligence was that he did, so that argument fails.

    Also, there was a no-fly zone in Iraq people tend to forget that was being disregarded by Iraq. In addition, Bush said if inspectors didn't have unfettered access to make sure there were no WMDs, then there would be consequences. So Bush was following through and not just giving idle threats.

    Did Obama let Libya know that they needed to do something or there would be consequences? It seemed to me that the consequences came out of nowhere this time.

    Furthermore, I think the hypocrisy of Obama who as a senator said Bush shouldn't have done what he did and now Obama as POTUS is doing the same thing does open him up to criticism by those of us on the right, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't have a "team". I've never been a party type. The "team" is merely the conduit; the means by which you pursue a message or a cause or an issue.

    Perfect example:

    6th Congressional District Representative Michelle Bachman of MN, who of all things gave the "Tea Party" response to the Obama's SOTU and who pays lip service to "Constitutional Principles", voted IN FAVOR of extending the otherwise expiring provisions of the Patriot Act.

    That shit is totally unconstitutional and thus, I ended up calling and siding with Minnesota's 5th Congressional Representative Democrat Keith Ellison on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I protested against Bush and unconstitutional foreign intervention and I'm doing it again with respect to Barry Soetoro.

    "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual imminent threat to the nation." - Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama), 2007

    You're right about that Barry!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Voting against the Iraq invasion AND the Patriot Act has consequences...ask former Wisconsin senator
    Russ Feingold who lost to
    a Tea Party candidate....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why is it wrong to covertly assassinate a foreign leader, but OK to torture prisoners for months and years on end?

    Seems like that might be a bit contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not related, but I HAD to share this because it made me laugh and be sad at the same time. What's next? Stripping For Jesus? Porn For Jesus? Check out the stilettos on these nice church ladies.

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8026078

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is it wrong to covertly assassinate a foreign leader, but OK to torture prisoners for months and years on end?

    And why is it OK to kill a baby inside's its mother's womb but not outside the womb?

    ReplyDelete
  10. WMD's -- maybe the CIA duped Bush on purpose in order to go to war, regime change, the Fifth Column. Beth your point about what Obama said as Senator, yeah he can't escape that but as Larry Mendte has said presidents may change but our military policy remains the same (again, the Invisible Government really running things?). Was Saddam Hussein a direct threat to us? There was the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and now the Obama Doctrine is shaping up and one element seems to be humanitarianism. I really don't have a problem with that. It just seems to me that if Bush gets to start a war, to have a war of choice we should afford Obama the same. Bush may have gotten a Congressional resolution authorizing force but it wasn't a Congressional declaration of war as set out in the Constitution. The last time we did that was as George Will pointed out way back in 1942.

    ReplyDelete
  11. soapster: "6th Congressional District Representative Michelle Bachmann of MN...voted IN FAVOR of extending the otherwise expiring provisions of the Patriot Act."

    I'm still mesmerized by this whole you won't be able to buy an incandescent light bulb in a year or two. Bush signed the damn thing, what was so critical about passing this law and how is it conservative?

    Saty: "Why is it wrong to covertly assassinate a foreign leader but OK to torture prisoners for months and years on end?"

    Depends on what you're talking about. "Shedding for the Wedding" might qualify.

    Beth: "And why is it OK to kill a baby inside its mother's womb but not outside the womb?"

    Of course you can dismember a fetus but not a detained terrorist nor can you deny them food and water until they starve to death as apparently you can with certain cognitively disabled people but I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You really need to come to work with me sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! softair mimetismo

    ReplyDelete