Foreign Policy Reset
Marc Comtois
In light of the Libya situation, Victor Davis Hanson concisely sums up the truth behind the past decade of anti-Iraq War stances made by liberals and the Democratic Party.
Libya is now an exegesis of the Iraq War. By now we know that the Bush-Cheney “shredding” of the Constitution (e.g., tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, renditions, preventative detention, Predator drones, and Guantanamo Bay) was simply a liberal talking point. Why do we know that? Because Obama has either embraced or expanded all of those anti-terrorism protocols, and even hired the very lawyers and deans to legitimize them who used to sue the government to stop them. But Libya was the capstone of the entire liberal reset. When the MSNBC talking heads now support bombing an oil-producing Muslim Arab country that does not threaten our national security — without congressional approval, and with fewer allies than went with us to Afghanistan and Iraq — then we realize the entire Iraq hysteria was simply partisan politics, not about principles. That’s why we won’t see Rendition II at the movies, a return of Cindy Sheehan to network news, or Michael Moore in the VIP seats at the 2012 Democratic convention.
Never let a crisis go to waste, right? I'm sure there are those who oppose the Libya war on the same grounds as they opposed all of the "Bush/Cheney/Haliburton!"(TM) actions, but they've been relegated back to the "fringe" by mainstream Democrats/liberals/progressives. They're just not as useful anymore.
It will be VERY interesting to watch Obama tonight!
How ill he expalin away the following:
The Weinberger doctrine:
1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
More so given SECDEF Gates' pronouncements yesterday on Libya.....
"We Get The Government We Deserve!"
I AM SHOCKED!!!
Every good liberal will tell you...
Same ting, 'cept different.
In Libya innocent civilians are dying on the ground.
Iraq we first used 9/11, then WMDs, then that they had used chemical weapons on their own people in the PAST. None of that was going on at the time of the invasion. Innocent civilians were not dying when we invaded.
If you can't understand that, there is no reason to debate.
Swazool:
In Iraq, the innocent civilians were already dead and buried in mass graves, or did you forget those scenes from the early part of the engagement?
I guess we could have let Saddam wait for us to ease up on the no-fly zone and then, as you desire, he could continue his slaughter of innocents. Then we could attack? Oh no, then it was about the oil!
I guess I have difficulty finding the difference.
Oh yeah...same ting, 'cept different...because our President is now a Democrat. That's right, I forgot.
Sorry...carry on.
Does anyone have a clip of the look on Olbermann's face when he heard we were dropping bombs in Libya. Now that would be price less.
swazool-Rwanda,Sudan,Congo,Cambodia,Myanmar,East Timor,etc.
Why is ok now?Because it's Obama's play?
The clown was choosing March Madness brackets while we were revving up an attack.It looks like Hillary is running the war powers scenario on her own.
She is a real Machiavellian scumbag.
I think there are three factors at work here:
1. This is what happens when the President says something irresponsible and can't take the consequences of backing off of it. When Obama said that Kaddafi's actions were "unacceptable" and that he should be removed, failing to take action would expose him as the weakest of paper tigers, and with his credibility already shredded he couldn't let it happen again.
2. There is an element of "wag the dog" here that hasn't been publicized enough. The economy is not getting better, and Obama wanted something for people to rally around. However, his execution of this adventure is like childrens' t-ball compared to the Pawsox quality of Clinton's adventure in Yugoslavia.
3. While everybody is focused on Libya, watch the other hand. I suspect there are dirty deeds being done on the regulatory front on a number of issues, including next year's elections.
Funny how Cindy Sheehan, who was on MSNBC nightly calling Bush a globalist scumbag (correctly) now can't even get in the building since she is saying the same about Nobama.
No surprise here. Your mistake is confusing progressives with corporate Democrats or other faux progressives (small wonder considering rightwing talk and corporate media behaved as if Obama were some type of radical).
Here's a well known progressive site's take on the Obama administration:
prorev.com/obamameter.htm
It's interesting that the focus about Northern Africa at this time is about domestic politics and not international policies. Mark Do you have any thoughts on the situation in Libya?
Why should he bother to respond to you? You are blatantly baiting him.
Mark,
I would like you to explain your thoughts about Libya. It would greatly assist if you would let us know what you think about the situation. I cannot tell from what you have written where you stand on the issue. I hope that you will not consider this to be baiting you. I just have some questions regarding this thread that I'd like you to clear up.
OldTimeLefty
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
It will be VERY interesting to watch Obama tonight!
How ill he expalin away the following:
The Weinberger doctrine:
1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
More so given SECDEF Gates' pronouncements yesterday on Libya.....
"We Get The Government We Deserve!"
Posted by: Aldo at March 28, 2011 9:27 AMI AM SHOCKED!!!
Every good liberal will tell you...
Same ting, 'cept different.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2011 10:15 AMIn Libya innocent civilians are dying on the ground.
Iraq we first used 9/11, then WMDs, then that they had used chemical weapons on their own people in the PAST. None of that was going on at the time of the invasion. Innocent civilians were not dying when we invaded.
If you can't understand that, there is no reason to debate.
Posted by: Swazool at March 28, 2011 11:09 AMSwazool:
In Iraq, the innocent civilians were already dead and buried in mass graves, or did you forget those scenes from the early part of the engagement?
I guess we could have let Saddam wait for us to ease up on the no-fly zone and then, as you desire, he could continue his slaughter of innocents. Then we could attack? Oh no, then it was about the oil!
I guess I have difficulty finding the difference.
Oh yeah...same ting, 'cept different...because our President is now a Democrat. That's right, I forgot.
Sorry...carry on.
Posted by: John at March 28, 2011 11:22 AMDoes anyone have a clip of the look on Olbermann's face when he heard we were dropping bombs in Libya. Now that would be price less.
Posted by: Max Diesel at March 28, 2011 11:25 AMswazool-Rwanda,Sudan,Congo,Cambodia,Myanmar,East Timor,etc.
Posted by: joe bernstein at March 28, 2011 2:59 PMWhy is ok now?Because it's Obama's play?
The clown was choosing March Madness brackets while we were revving up an attack.It looks like Hillary is running the war powers scenario on her own.
She is a real Machiavellian scumbag.
I think there are three factors at work here:
1. This is what happens when the President says something irresponsible and can't take the consequences of backing off of it. When Obama said that Kaddafi's actions were "unacceptable" and that he should be removed, failing to take action would expose him as the weakest of paper tigers, and with his credibility already shredded he couldn't let it happen again.
2. There is an element of "wag the dog" here that hasn't been publicized enough. The economy is not getting better, and Obama wanted something for people to rally around. However, his execution of this adventure is like childrens' t-ball compared to the Pawsox quality of Clinton's adventure in Yugoslavia.
3. While everybody is focused on Libya, watch the other hand. I suspect there are dirty deeds being done on the regulatory front on a number of issues, including next year's elections.
Posted by: BobN at March 28, 2011 4:32 PMFunny how Cindy Sheehan, who was on MSNBC nightly calling Bush a globalist scumbag (correctly) now can't even get in the building since she is saying the same about Nobama.
Posted by: Tommy Cranston at March 28, 2011 6:57 PMNo surprise here. Your mistake is confusing progressives with corporate Democrats or other faux progressives (small wonder considering rightwing talk and corporate media behaved as if Obama were some type of radical).
Here's a well known progressive site's take on the Obama administration:
Posted by: Russ at March 29, 2011 11:03 AMprorev.com/obamameter.htm
It's interesting that the focus about Northern Africa at this time is about domestic politics and not international policies. Mark Do you have any thoughts on the situation in Libya?
Posted by: Phil at March 29, 2011 6:05 PMNo thoughts?
Posted by: Phil at March 30, 2011 6:58 PMWhy should he bother to respond to you? You are blatantly baiting him.
Posted by: BobN at March 31, 2011 12:48 PMMark,
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at March 31, 2011 11:36 PMI would like you to explain your thoughts about Libya. It would greatly assist if you would let us know what you think about the situation. I cannot tell from what you have written where you stand on the issue. I hope that you will not consider this to be baiting you. I just have some questions regarding this thread that I'd like you to clear up.
OldTimeLefty