In Libya, Obama playing the cards he’s been dealt

President Obama’s decision to join our European and Arab allies in launching air assaults against Libyan forces has been criticized by some as an ad hoc, patched-together reaction rather than a carefully thought-out strategy. And to a degree, they’re right. Sometimes, an unexpected and quickly changing situation does not permit the careful application of strategy. Sometimes, you just have to play your cards as they are dealt, recalculating risk and reward as each card is flipped your way. I don’t know how this is going to play out, but so far Obama seems to be playing his hand rationally and cautiously.

Sure, intervening earlier against Gadhafi on the side of the Libyan rebels might have proved more effective in military terms, but it also would have put the United States in the position of trying to dictate outcomes in the Arab world. And not intervening at all, as some on the left still advocate, was a cruel option at best. Had the coalition not acted when it did last week, the world today would probably be sitting back and watching helplessly while a brutal Gadhafi massacred tens of thousands of his fellow Libyans.

Many of those now condemning Obama for acting would have been condemning him for not acting. That’s how these things go. As Obama himself noted in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”

The fact that we are acting, somewhat reluctantly, at the urging of European and Arab allies also minimizes the geo-political risk. This is not an American initiative in which the United Nations and others are being strong-armed to support our policy; this is an international initiative which the United States has agreed to join as its most powerful member. There’s a world of difference between the two, not least because it has forced other countries to shed their infantilism and take responsibility, rather than leaving the tough decisions to Uncle Sam all the time and then grumbling about the outcome.

Obama’s critics also point out that we have no real idea how this will end, or even how we want it to end. Again, that’s accurate to a degree. However, Gadhafi himself has made it clear that he sees only two possible outcomes: victory or death. He has no third option — at this point, he can’t leave Libya to live elsewhere, and he knows it.

Publicly, coalition leaders are saying that Gadhafi is not a military target, but the smoking ruins of his personal compound in Tripoli offer more convincing evidence to the contrary. And at some point, if Western air power doesn’t take him out, his own commanders might. They now see their units being taken apart from the air, and there’s nothing they can do to defend themselves. The quickest way to make it stop is to make Gadhafi stop.

So we shall see.

– Jay Bookman

ADDENDUM: After all these years, the cynicism of Newt Gingrich continues to amaze and even disgust.

Until last week, the former speaker had been pressing Obama to intervene militarily in Libya and force Gadhafi’s ouster. “This is a moment to get rid of him,” he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox. “Do it. Get it over with.”

So what does he say now? As Politico reports:

“Newt Gingrich blasted the decision to attack Libya Sunday afternoon as “opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism.”

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.

Iran and North Korea pose “vastly bigger threats” to American national interests, he argued. There are other countries in Africa where strongmen brutalize civilians, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

“Mugabe has killed more people, the Sudanese dictatorship has killed more people, there are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things,” Gingrich said.

1,639 comments Add your comment

Mick

March 21st, 2011
8:10 am

I really did not want to see us get involved in any way, the days of being the world’s policeman need to come to an end..

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:12 am

We got from the campaign promise of getting us out of Iraq(which still hasn’t happened) to now being involved in 3 wars. Great job Obozo!!!!!!!!!!

Mick

March 21st, 2011
8:14 am

peadawg

This is just another chance to bash obama, last week many on the right were all ramped up for obama to “do something”, when you are the president you can’t win..

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
8:14 am

I was not in favor of intervention as long as the protests were peaceful and tolerated. Attacking civilians militarily, by their own governement, changes the whole situation and I am in favor of this action.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:15 am

” many on the right were all ramped up for obama to “do something””

I wasn’t one of the “many”, pal. Trust me. No way in hell should be involved in 3 wars right now.

Mick

March 21st, 2011
8:17 am

Well, the first two, obama did not start but it seems almost impossible to end wars these days…

HDB

March 21st, 2011
8:17 am

“The fact that we are acting, somewhat reluctantly, at the urging of European and Arab allies also minimizes the geo-political risk. This is not an American initiative in which the United Nations and others are being strong-armed to support our policy; this is an international initiative which the United States has agreed to join as its most powerful member. There’s a world of difference between the two, not least because it has forced other countries to shed their infantilism and take responsibility, rather than leaving the tough decisions to Uncle Sam all the time and then grumbling about the outcome.”

EXACTLY THE POINT!! People like Peadawg need to note the difference!! As SecDef Gates said: We are supporting the coalition; we are part of the coalition; we are NOT taking the preeminent role in the coalition!!

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:19 am

“We are supporting the coalition; we are part of the coalition; we are NOT taking the preeminent role in the coalition!!”

It doesn’t matter whether we are supporting or taking the preeminent role. We shouldn’t be involved. We didn’t get involved in Egypt and we shouldn’t be involved now.

Normal

March 21st, 2011
8:20 am

Peadawg is correct, we never should have gotten involved in Lybia, period! Let the other UN nations handle it.

Mick, you are correct too, wars are hard to end because when a war ends the money making machne stops…can’t have that now, can we?

Murph

March 21st, 2011
8:21 am

Peadawg
I don’t post here often but I must say you do excel in Monday-morning quarterbacking. And the term you and many others use “Obozo” is incredibly disrespectful to the office of the presidency.

Unlike us rushing into the Iraq war with no real exit strategy, Obama and his team have tried to carefully make a difference in Libya, all the while improving our stance in the world.

Your comments reflect immense immaturity and the unfortunate rise of the “Me-first” world we’re living in, as well as the tantrums of a five year old.

Grow up.

Herman Cain

March 21st, 2011
8:22 am

Funny how the bedwetters that are cheering this move by little barry onj the grounds mo-mar was attacking his own people arethe same chicken littles that screamed about Bush taking down saddam when it was common knowledge the terror of mass killings and rape rooms he was putting his people through. Bush defends a people = bad, oblowbag defends a people = good. liberal = Hypocrite.

jt

March 21st, 2011
8:23 am

No declaration of War by congress.Americans did not elect the UN.Screw any and all precedences. They were illegal too.

All are war criminals and should be tried accordingly.

Thank you and have a good day.

Senior Citizen Kane

March 21st, 2011
8:23 am

I fondly recall the liberal mantra of the Bush era: Iraq never attacked us. I guess I missed Libya’s invasion of the U.S.

electrician

March 21st, 2011
8:24 am

to apply the reasoning used as to why we should have stayed out of Iraq,Ghadhafy has not attacked us and he has no Wmd’s.remember?.Civilians are going to die in large numbers by our hand.

JKL2

March 21st, 2011
8:24 am

At least Hillary has the sense to distance herself from this nutcase. The world is looking for leadership and we’re sitting here looking at this clown. I guess we’ll have to wait for the new polling data to come in to give us dirrection.

Palin fan

March 21st, 2011
8:25 am

People like Peadawg who do not support the war or the troops are unpatriotic an unAmerican. Their cowardice makes real Americans ashamed to like in the same great country as the cowards.

He is doing it, but I for 1 am surprised to see Obama take a powerful stance, fight like aworrior, and support the troops.

Herman Cain

March 21st, 2011
8:26 am

murph, having oblowbag sit at the big desk is incredibly disrespectful to the office of the Presidency. Fixed your typo for you.

Paul

March 21st, 2011
8:26 am

Sen Graham, among others, has criticized Pres Obama for taking a back seat and letting others lead this effort. Last I checked, France and UK had a lot more riding on this (oil) than we do. Those with most at risk should themselves assume most of the risk.

Did I say ‘oil’? Sorry, I meant “humanitarian principles.”

Arab League’s getting skittish, failing to see how a sustained ground-attack campaign fits in with a ‘no-fly’ zone. It’s a fair question.

Crazy dictator. Killing tens of thousands of his own people. Humanitarian disaster. Has chemical weapons.

Hmmm….. where have I heard this before? And the difference between the two is what, exactly? (someone’s already put forth the position it’s because this has a clear UN mandate. That, of course, leads to the question if Pres Bush had had a clear UN mandate, would those on the Left who proclaimed “He attacked a country that never attacked us” have been in favor of action, then?).

aps

March 21st, 2011
8:29 am

Jay, I am waiting for all the anti war libs to join together in protests around the world. After all, during the previous administration it was always about being anti war and not anti Bush. That’s the one thing about liberals one can always count on, no principals when a Democrat in the White House. Just love your excuse giving Obama a pass.

Paul

March 21st, 2011
8:29 am

electrician

“he has no Wmd’s.remember?.”

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen was on news shows over the weekend stating we’re keeping a close eye on Ghadhafy’s mustard gas stockpiles.

Blitz Wolfer

March 21st, 2011
8:29 am

How dare Obama make a unilateral attack on Libya without approval from the U.N.!

Oops – Thats what the demokkk-rats accused Bush of doing in Iraq.

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:30 am

Hey libs, where is the outrage? I am assuming this was an okay engagement to enter in because Ghaddafy was going after his own people. I guess when you guys were protesting the Iraq War, you forgot that Saddam murdered his own people on a routine basis, didn’t you? I guess for you guys it is okay to go to war as long as the POTUS has a “D” next to his name, right?

I have no problem with engaging Libya on this. I would have supported it if Bush did it. I am supporting it with Obama doing it. I wish this country could have gotten the same support from you libs on Iraq and Afghanistan.

electrician

March 21st, 2011
8:31 am

Pelosi blamed Iraq on the “oil men” in the white house.so what now?

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:32 am

“I fondly recall the liberal mantra of the Bush era: Iraq never attacked us. I guess I missed Libya’s invasion of the U.S.” :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

“People like Peadawg who do not support the war or the troops are unpatriotic an unAmerican” – Supporting our troops and supporting being involved in 3 wars at the same time are 2 different things.

Mick

March 21st, 2011
8:32 am

Obviously, the meatheads around here are trying to compare this with iraq. Seriously, there is no comparison, so please try another avenue of attack..

Darwin

March 21st, 2011
8:34 am

The right wing is in a dithers. Democrats know how to launch cruise missles too.

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2011
8:34 am

At the risk of sounding somewhat flippant about Jay’s perfectly reasonable analysis–

This is not an American initiative in which the United Nations and others are being strong-armed to support our policy; this is an international initiative which the United States has agreed to join as its most powerful member. There’s a world of difference between the two

There really isn’t much difference if one of our Freedom Bombs happens to kill your family.

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
8:34 am

“We got from the campaign promise of getting us out of Iraq(which still hasn’t happened) ”

He can’t keep a promise he never made

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:35 am

Murph were you equally upset when the liberal trolls in the media, in Congress, and on forums like this called Bush names? For sure you were out rallying everybody to stop the disrespect of the office, weren’t you?

TaxPayer

March 21st, 2011
8:35 am

The UN should take the lead and keep the lead in this effort, not the US. We should be just one of many fighting together to rid the world of a brutal dictator.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:35 am

“Seriously, there is no comparison”

How so?
Iraq never attacked us but had a dictator who killed his own people, so Bush, a Republican, attacks Iraq = Liberal outrage and protests!!!
Libya never attacked us but has a dictator who kills his own people, so Obama, a Democrat, attacks Libya = Free pass

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:37 am

Doggone/Ga –

“I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda.” — 10/2/07, Chicago

What about there being a promise he never made?

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2011
8:38 am

I probably shouldn’t bother with the usual pissing matches, but…

What about there being a promise he never made?

There’s this little thing called the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between governments, that happened since 10/2/07. Had Obama broken that agreement, would you be happier?

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:38 am

Doggone….you sure have a selective memory. How can you argue against the facts like that? He said he was going to get us out of Iraq and guess what…..we are still there.

electrician

March 21st, 2011
8:38 am

Paul..sounds the same to me, I had no problem with saddam being taken out,WMD’s or not.different administrations different justifications.in 1998 Clinton justified an airstrike on Iraq based on the WMD suspicions and all was well with the left.its on the other foot now.

Palin fan

March 21st, 2011
8:38 am

Peadawg probably doesn’t remember the attack of the American plane over Lockerbee, England either. How convenient.

But that is the type of pig-ignorance to expect form cowards who do not support the troops, the wars and the Great Office of the Presidency of the United States of America (maybe not Obama, but you have to support the office).

moonbat betty

March 21st, 2011
8:39 am

war for oil!

war for oil!

war for oil!

1811/1801 - 0311/0317

March 21st, 2011
8:39 am

“Publicly, coalition leaders are saying that Ghadhafy is not a military target, but the smoking ruins of his personal compound in Tripoli offer more convincing evidence to the contrary.”

Jay:

O.K. so tell me:

1) Why it would have been so wrong to have our CIA with a little (or lot) of money, a bullet or two or some poison, etc. to have taken out this satanic idiot years ago thus saving thousands of lives and untold money and misery …………..

2) But it’s o.k. now to try to do the same thing with British missles ?

Basically, it’s because we have become gutless on how to solve issues early on as well as “eat up with the dumbs”.

jt

March 21st, 2011
8:40 am

A voice of reason…………drowned out by shrill partisonship……..ignore at your own peril….A little “shock and awe will keep your minds off of.5 dollar gas and 5 dollar eggs I suppose……….Clintonesque…………

“It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked — not by Gadhafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.”

Ron Paul

ty webb

March 21st, 2011
8:40 am

and just think…we could’ve already gotten Osama if we hadn’t taken our “eyes off the prize” with this whole libya mess.

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:41 am

Stands….the point is that he campaigned on getting us out of Iraq. He has broken his campaign promise. Perhaps he should have said….”I will honor our SOFA but will do everything in my power to pull us out of Iraq” Instead, he wanted to make it sound like he was going to do everything to get us out….probably to woo ignorant voters such yourself.

1811/1801 - 0311/0317

March 21st, 2011
8:41 am

“In Libya, Obama playing the cards he’s been dealt”

No, he’s playing the cards that during the campaign he told everyone he could win with.

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2011
8:42 am

I don’t suppose anyone’s terribly interested in discussing the actual topic at hand, right? We’re all here to settle scores about what the other side said in years past that we still consider to be unreasonable?

If that’s so I guess I’m outa here. Later.

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:42 am

Ty webb….Awesome.

stands for decibels

March 21st, 2011
8:43 am

one other thing:

Perhaps he should have said….”I will honor our SOFA

The SOFA was negotiated and completed after the election, dumbass.

Jeez.

MiltonMan

March 21st, 2011
8:43 am

Kudos to the Obozo! Excellent job calling in precision missile strikes while on a satellite phone and partying in Brazil at the same time. This guy has skills! Only took him 30+ days to make a decision.

Normal

March 21st, 2011
8:44 am

Ty,
I bet Osama is dead and has been for years. We are not being told so because then we would demand that our troops come home. The War Machine doesn’t want that because, like I said before, the cash flow would stop.

Senior Citizen Kane

March 21st, 2011
8:44 am

“Peadawg probably doesn’t remember the attack of the American plane over Lockerbee, England either. How convenient.”

Oh, so this is retaliation for a terrorist attack 22 years ago? Hate to spoil it for you, but Reagan already settled that score.

Bob

March 21st, 2011
8:44 am

better late than never but if Obama had acted two weeks ago, the nutjob would be out. It is funny watching some of the libs squirm watching their guy bomb a country that never attacked us.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:44 am

“I don’t suppose anyone’s terribly interested in discussing the actual topic at hand, right?”

Yes, you’re right. My apologies. Let’s discuss how Jay and other liberals are giving Obama a free pass for getting involved in a war with a country that never attacked us yet when Bush got involved in Iraq there was outrage. Let’s do discuss…..

1811/1801 - 0311/0317

March 21st, 2011
8:44 am

Actually, if he is assassinated (and that’s what it would be) I am going to miss those cute little uniforms he designs for himself.

Espcecially, the hat that sets on top of his “fro”.

Paul

March 21st, 2011
8:45 am

Mick

“Seriously, there is no comparison,” (with Iraq)

Nice, general dismissal.

Care to provide a few specifics on how it’s not comparable?

Scott

March 21st, 2011
8:46 am

Stands…A SOFA CAN be changed dipshit. Are you trying to convince us that Obama would make this campaign promise without knowing that a SOFA is going to be created? Come on now. He is the POTUS. He could have said Iraq to pound sand and that he was going to honor his campaign promise. It is sad that you know he lied but yet you are so love with the guy that you give him a free pass on the thing.

Jay

March 21st, 2011
8:46 am

When Obama fabricates an excuse to invade and occupy Libya, and then does so with only a fraction of the ground troops needed to govern the place, THEN you’ll have your apples to apples comparison.

Until then, the far closer comparison is Bosnia, where a no-fly zone succeeded in fending off genocide.

Jay

March 21st, 2011
8:47 am

Oh, and I added an addendum to the post.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:47 am

“But that is the type of pig-ignorance to expect form cowards who do not support the troops”

Seeing as you’re a Palin fan I can see how you don’t get it. I support the troops…they are just doing what they are told. But no, I don’t support being a part of 3 wars at one time. If that makes me “unpatriotic” in your eyes, well frankly my dear, I just don’t give a damn. ;)

USMC dawg

March 21st, 2011
8:47 am

I guess there is a split in the Democratic Party between Jay Bookman and his Comrade Louis Farrakhan:
Farrakhan Warns Obama: ‘Be Careful, Brother. Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?’

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/03/who-hell-do-you-think-your-are.html

Mick

March 21st, 2011
8:47 am

Cons, your silliness is out of line, take a deep breath and try to think rationally….
p.s. the childish names for the president are really self flagellating.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:48 am

Jay @ 8:46

You spin me right round baby right round….so sad.

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
8:48 am

Peadawg – what part of “COMBAT troops” did you not understand? “The only troops I will keep in Iraq” – means not ALL the troops will leave. Which means we WON’T BE OUT OF IRAQ as you stated.

Cletus Turdeau

March 21st, 2011
8:48 am

Middle East- World War 3. The greatest of the holy wars. Addendum- Newt is a Nut!

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
8:49 am

“He said he was going to get us out of Iraq “]

No, he didn’t

AmVet

March 21st, 2011
8:50 am

What is interesting is how the War First, War Last, War Always fake conservatives in the GOP are suddenly quite mealy mouthed about this act of war by the US President.

Had it been by his predecessor – the worst ever – they would be extolling his vision, bravery and decisiveness. There is virtually no difference whatsoever between George and his half-black nephew.

The clueless neo-cons, including the newly crafted Dem variety, and their kids have ZERO credibility on all matters military. The big talkers are almost to a man, flip-flopping, card carrying, draft-dodging members of the 101st Chairborne.

As for the actions themselves, there is one word – deplorable.

Senator Paul said it well:

We have to remember a no-fly zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in a war against Libya? Libya hasn’t done anything to the United States. They are not a threat to US national security. There is no constitutional authority for a President to go and place a no fly zone on other countries around the world.

carlosgvv

March 21st, 2011
8:50 am

It is likely American military action is Libya will produce the same results as Vietnam, the Gulf war, the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan; pain, anguish and sorrow in the families of many American soldiers and big smiles of happiness on the faces of those in the Military-Industrial Complex.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:51 am

So now Doggone/GA is going to argue a technicality, not the fact that Obama lied. Man I love Mondays!!!!!

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
8:51 am

“Until then, the far closer comparison is Bosnia, where a no-fly zone succeeded in fending off genocide.”

That’s exactly how I see it also

Peadawg

March 21st, 2011
8:51 am

AmVet, be careful with that broad brush you are painting with big guy.

USMC dawg

March 21st, 2011
8:52 am

Even though I totally disagree with Michael Moore, at least he is Consistent, unlike other Liberals this morning…
Filmmaker Michael Moore Rips President Obama Over Libya

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/20/filmmaker-michael-moore-rips-president-obama-libya/#ixzz1HEoYeer7

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/20/filmmaker-michael-moore-rips-president-obama-libya/?test=faces

TaxPayer

March 21st, 2011
8:52 am

Newt Gingrich is the epitome of the Republican Party. He’s increasing his popularity amongst the GOP constituency with each remark.

Normal

March 21st, 2011
8:53 am

Do you guys really think that if President Obama tried to go it alone and get the approval of Congress, it would have happened any sooner? Yeah, Right.

Newt changes his opinions faster than he changes his panties. What a totally corrupt person he is.

Mike

March 21st, 2011
8:54 am

122 of 124 missiles fired at Libyan targets are ours, but we only have a limited role….right. Talk about playing to your base….It is fun watching these left wing pansies peeing all over themselves and trying to cover for the President at the same time.

John

March 21st, 2011
8:54 am

Bookman, you and your lefties are such hypocrites. If the Prez were GOP, you’d be screaming how we’re now invading yet another Muslim country, while we still are occupying 2 others.

Hypocrites!

Ohoh

March 21st, 2011
8:55 am

At least France has some balls. Imagine that.

Paul

March 21st, 2011
8:55 am

Jay 8:46

Which is why I asked, IF there’d been a UN vote right before military action against Iraq, IF there would have been support amongst his critics. Didn’t get bogged down with WMDs/no WMDs, ground forces/no ground forces (yeah, we had ground forces in Bosnia) – it was more designed for the big picture idea.

But I can see from the posts that’s going pretty much nowhere. So it gets back to a question raised here years ago: under what circumstances does the US justify military intervention in another country based on humanitarian grounds?

Personally, I think it’s pretty fuzzy. There seems to be a general idea that as long as there’s a whole lot of people being killed (or in Libya’s case, at risk, not dead yet, but we think it just might happen) and so long as we don’t see many Americans killed, it’s a good thing.

Regarding Newt: ““It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya” – it’s a decent question. What is the standard?

Jay

March 21st, 2011
8:55 am

As to Obama’s “broken promise” in Iraq, let’s first take another look at the pledge:

“I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda.”

Now let’s take a look at what has actually happened. By August 2010 — 19 months after Obama’s inauguration — the last U.S. combat brigade was removed from Iraq from a peak of more than 140,000, leaving an estimated 50,000 troops to hunt down al Qaida and protect U.S. diplomats, the Green Zone, etc.

Since August 2010, we have suffered a total of 23 fatalities in Iraq.

Normal

March 21st, 2011
8:56 am

USMC Dawg,
Is your hatred of President Obama making you take sides with the likes of Farrakhan? Says a lot about your character…or lack of it.

poison pen

March 21st, 2011
8:57 am

Doggone, I am glad that you supported Bush in his war also, We all know that Hussain killed many more people that Ghadaffi has, you’re a true American.

Jimmy62

March 21st, 2011
8:57 am

Gingrich is a tool.

We should start following the Jimmy62 Doctrine. When a foreign government starts killing its own people for reasons like dissent, then the US military should bomb the leadership of that government out of existence. And then leave and let the country pick up the pieces, with the unspoken warning that whoever ends up in charge better not make the same mistakes, because we will be happy to come back and repeat the process as many times as it takes till a government that serves the people comes to power.

Paul

March 21st, 2011
8:58 am

“At least France has some balls. Imagine that.”

I was wondering how long until the “Manly Man I Have More Testosterone Than You” argument would be made.

godless heathen

March 21st, 2011
8:58 am

Who cares as long as ragheads are dieing?

The Teleprompter Caliphate of Socialist Union thugs

March 21st, 2011
8:58 am

Yes, we can smell it – all over the world – the revolution, comrades!
Thanks comrade Barack. The capitalist peegs’ collars should be
getting tight.

WOW

March 21st, 2011
8:59 am

I see the left wingers are in a bit of a bind over this.

Normal

March 21st, 2011
8:59 am

Paul,
“I was wondering how long until the “Manly Man I Have More Testosterone Than You” argument would be made.”

I take pills for that… :)

jt

March 21st, 2011
8:59 am

Actually AmVet………….your boy Nader said it BETTER———————————-Eventhough ,he almost single-handedly brought down our automobile industry……….I salute him…—–

“Nader says. “Why don’t we say what’s on the minds of many legal experts? That the Obama administration is committing war crimes. And if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.”

Jay

March 21st, 2011
8:59 am

Paul, I think the call for standards is naive. The range of possible situations is far too large and complex to pretend that a formal standard can be used. You can’t intervene in all of them, and you shouldn’t intervene in none of them.

As to ground troops in Bosnia, no, we did not have or use them. AFTER the peace accord was signed in Dayton, US forces were used to help run the place. But they were not used to impose the settlement.

WOW

March 21st, 2011
9:00 am

“Since August 2010, we have suffered a total of 23 fatalities in Iraq.’

Yep, the Bush/Petraeus surge worked. You know, the one Obama didn’t support?

WOW

March 21st, 2011
9:00 am

In other news, gas prices went up 7 cents.

AmVet

March 21st, 2011
9:00 am

Peadawg, no worries, little guy!

It makes the professional bloodlusters feel better about their lack of spine. But their hatred for BHO puts them in a helluva quandary.

And gawd forbid, even if plane loads of flag-draped coffins start coming home to Dover AFB once again, the neo-cons won’t give a ____. They just desperately want to see more dead Muslims. The details, sides, issues, etc are irrelevant…

Common Sense

March 21st, 2011
9:01 am

We could have let the others address it if the felt so inclined. They did not need our help.

And we could have taught the world we would not be policing the world forever.

We chose to stay the course of electing a politician who says one thing and does another….

poison pen

March 21st, 2011
9:01 am

Jay, so it takes 50,000 troops to protect the Green Zone? and it’s a joke to say we are hunting down Al qaida, we can’t even find Bin Laden after almost 11 years.

You are blinded by Obama, please take the blinders off.

John

March 21st, 2011
9:01 am

“When Obama fabricates an excuse to invade and occupy Libya, and then does so with only a fraction of the ground troops needed to govern the place, THEN you’ll have your apples to apples comparison.”

C’mon Jay! This is an old, tired and absolutely incorrect argument. The entire friggin world thought Saddam had the weapons. Is everyone a liar? Where were you in all this? I don’t recall seeing you appear before Congress, telling them how all of the intelligence is wrong. I also don’t recall seeing you appear before any public body calling out General Powell as a liar either.

Put your money where your mouth is, big boy. How about you running for office and telling the rest of the planet all of the answers. You and Bill Maher are 2 peas in a pod.

Senior Citizen Kane

March 21st, 2011
9:02 am

Bush fabricated an excuse?

Even David Kay acknowledges:

“Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat.”

WOW

March 21st, 2011
9:02 am

“Obama’s critics also point out that we have no real idea how this will end, or even how we want it to end.”

Jay, who are these “critics” you point out? Reminds me of a strategy MSNBC uses when they can’t point to specifics.

EX: Norah O’Donnel to Pat Buccanan.

Norah: “Pat, some say that the GOP doesn’t have a strategy to win in November.

Pat: “Who are “some,” Norah?”

Norah: “Well, let’s move on.”

WOW

March 21st, 2011
9:03 am

“But their hatred for BHO puts them in a helluva quandary.”

It’s a grand thing to see when the tables turn on the left. When it was Bush hatred it was ok. When it’s BO hatred, it’s evil. Got it.

Corey

March 21st, 2011
9:03 am

Obviously Mr. Obama, and the leaders of Canada. UK, France, Belgium, the Arab League, Spain, Quatar and others know a lot more than meets the eye. This is not only about protecting rebels from the whims of a dictator. Wait for Bob Woodward’s book.

Palin fan

March 21st, 2011
9:04 am

The fake conservatives are not supporting our troops or the war against Lybia. They are unpatriotic. America will win this war against Lybia just like we won the was against Iraq.

Real conservatives, not like the claimed veterans on here, Peadowg and Newt – all RINOs, support war, our troops, the presidential office.

Jay

March 21st, 2011
9:04 am

What do you mean, EVEN David Kay?

Kay was the man handpicked by Bush to head the post-war Iraq Study Group.

WOW

March 21st, 2011
9:05 am

“As to ground troops in Bosnia, no, we did not have or use them.”

Bosnia was Clinton trying to draw attention away from cigargate. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2011
9:06 am

“not the fact that Obama lied”

I can’t argue a “fact” that doesn’t exist

Normal

March 21st, 2011
9:06 am

The way I see this days blog is that the Righties will say President Obama is bad even if he starts changing water into wine, no compromise, period.

The Lefties for the action see it in an idealistic view, I think, in that saving the downtrodden, the underdog, is our national job.

Other lefties, like myself, see it as unnecessary for us to be involved. Let the UN handle it, or let it be. It’s really not our business and Lybia poses no harm to our Country.

In fact, if I had my way, I would follow Ron Paul’s doctrine and bring our troops home, period.

Now I have work to do…
Play nice!