The Liberals get the war they want,what will they do with it?

I’ve perused a number of liberal leaning media entities today (not blogs) and I have to say I am absolutely disgusted with the hypocrisy and idiocy of the international liberal elites and their take on the Libya War.
That this war is the right war at the right time for the right reasons is a morally bankrupt statement and is one I’ve seen within all the pro Obama pro Libya war propaganda.

And before you blabber I’m throwing the word W-A-R around too easily I’d say STFU! When one goes from an alleged no fly zone for the intent to protect civilians to trying to blow up a sovereign leader nowhere near said civilians you’ve crossed the line. Lest ye be reminded also that said civilians are indeed armed combatants in a civil war thus forfeiting their falsely bestowed international victim status.

I’m no fan of Gaddafi but what the world has done here is nothing more than try to heal its wounds of guilt.This war is more about feelings than it is anything else, although I readily concede there are two other primary factors. More on those in a sec.

Elitist guilt over Rwanda,Congo,and the Balkans is a driver to fight this just war. “To end human suffering”, the sheep bleat. The cleanliness of aerial bombardment where your guys don’t get dirty let alone bloodied won’t be enough,unless we bomb so many pro Gaddafi civilians and the Col himself into bits this won’t work. Where is your feeling-meter then? Well I’ll tell you it is where the head of the Arab League is, when he wasn’t misquoted,saying the operations are going beyond the no fly zone previously approved. It’s going where the two public supporters from the Gulf,Qatar & UAE have voiced support,offered nothing physical but have along with the Saudis supplied muscle to crack down on democracy seekers in Bahrain.

As for the other two drivers:

OIL. There I’ve said it. If over 10% of the EU’s oil supply isn’t part of the reason the Euros are gung ho I just don’t know.

Political stability. Again this is more for the Euros since it is their backyard and impacts them economically and socially. It doesn’t help the USA much at all and in fact since we don’t follow through with bombing Bahrain I’m thinking we’re screwed up on facts and reasoning but then again hope and change was never true anyway.

Advertisements

55 Comments

  1. bvilleyellowdog says:

    The level of regressive hypocracy never ceases to amaze. The same idiots that thought dubby’s war of choice for oil and ego was just peachie.

  2. Alfie says:

    Actually you can’t pin that on me dog. I didn’t support the decision to go to Iraq. If you have something real to offer please do,otherwise zip it with tha lying rhetoric.

  3. Rutherford says:

    But for the “hope and change” bitch-slap on Obama, I fully agree with this post Alfie. Our involvement in this effort makes no sense whatsoever. We are told it’s a limited mission to protect the people and that Gadaffi’s removal is not a part of the immediate goal … pure BS! I don’t like being lied to. Either I’m being lied to or Obama’s foreign policy folks are dumber than dumb.

    As I said on my Internet radio show yesterday, you don’t stand between a rabid dog and a bunch of five year olds and tell the kids “don’t worry, I’m here to protect you”. Once you walk away, the dog bites the kids. You’ve GOT to kill the dog (or at least remove him).

    Yellowdog, I get your point but it’s a distraction from Alfie’s legit concern. Either we fight every humanitarian cause in this world or we don’t. When we pick and choose, people have a right to examine our motives.

    Oh and yes …. Alfie you’re damn right … despite what John Kerry says, we are at war. 😦

  4. Alfie says:

    Rutherford,thanks. To be honest I didn’t mean the Hope & Change to be so Obama centric in its slapping and thats pretty silly on my part. I believe in the hope& change thing as being beyond his speeches. People all over the place expected it,some. Hell even he did initially I imagine.
    Now we have this “international” action. I am now wondering if some of the initial Iranian prop spin will pan out. We ignore Bahrain. We attack Libya. Will we attack Syria?

  5. Rutherford says:

    It’s interesting how two seemingly disconnected events are indeed connected. This foolishness with attacking Libya but not Bahrain is all about where the oil interests hit us. Now Japan has us, I think correctly, re-thinking our nuclear energy strategy.

    Bottom line … we’ve got to get off the oil addiction. If nukes is the only way to do it, is it worth the risk? Oil motivates too much of our foreign policy … or at least makes our policy suspect.

  6. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “zip it with tha lying rhetoric.”-
    Plug the ears – the regressive solution to truth. They listen to Faux after all “all the propaganda you want to hear”

  7. Alfie says:

    You continue to offer nothing. You are truly pathetic. btw I don’t watch Fox

  8. bvilleyellowdog says:

    lol…speak ill of the messager when all you have is faux fax

  9. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “The level of regressive hypocracy never ceases to amaze. The same idiots that thought dubby’s war of choice for oil and ego was just peachie.”

    Are we to assume that you are maintaining your anti-war stance now that we have Barack Obama launching pre-emptive attacks on a Middle East country that is not a direct threat to the US?

    “This foolishness with attacking Libya but not Bahrain is all about where the oil interests hit us.”

    There is more to the issue of Bahrain than just the Saudis.

    Bahrain is mostly Shi’ites who are massively supported by Iran. Supporting them over the Saudi-backed government would put us in bed with an enemy.

  10. Sending even more Americans into harms way… This seemingly never ending war penchant is really getting old. Weird thing is? Quadiffi has been killing Americans for years. One would think that we would have gone after his butt years ago…

  11. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Republicans went on air gleeful that yet another country had been invaded.

    South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said America’s mission must be to “isolate, strangle and replace” Qadhafi. This despite the fact that neither Graham or anyone else in Washington has any idea whether a change in that country will lead to al-Qaeda gaining control of its vast oil reserves.

    Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman attacked President Obama for not invading Libya earlier, and most of the other Republicans quoted on news shows this weekend had harsh words for Obama despite the fact that conservatives themselves were once reticent about invading a country only to get thrown into the middle of a messy civil war.

  12. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Dog, are we to assume that you are maintaining your anti-war stance now that we have Barack Obama launching pre-emptive attacks on a Middle East country that is not a direct threat to the US?

    Rather than telling us what 2 Republicans think about it, why not tell us what you think about it?

  13. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Republicans went on air gleeful that yet another country had been invaded.”

    Any chance you can give us the breakdown of how congress voted on this?

  14. bvilleyellowdog says:

    RIGHT WING NOISE: For days, many conservative presidential hopefuls and political pundits had called for U.S. intervention in Libya, but following the international community’s action, few took to the airwaves to back the President. Politico reported, “After demanding for weeks that he be more decisive on Libya, not one candidate in the field of 2012 GOP hopefuls has expressed support for President Barack Obama since he began bombing the North African nation. The GOP’s presidential prospects either sharply criticized the commander-in-chief this weekend or avoided weighing in.” For those GOP hopefuls and pundits that attacked the President, the critique centered on the premise that he waited too long and shouldn’t have sought international support — apparently it is preferable to go to war without international support. Sarah Palin said she wouldn’t criticize the President while she was abroad in India, but then went on to criticize the President saying if she were there would have been “less dithering.” John Bolton said on Fox News that the Obama administration was “wrong to base its decision to use force” due to the support of the Arab League or the United Nations. HBO’s Bill Maher noted on Friday, “Republicans don’t know what to do with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that’s good, but now Obama wants it so it’s bad. … Fox News today just put up a test pattern that said, ‘Please be patient while we figure out how this makes Obama the worst president ever.'”

  15. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Let me make it easy for you…

    Dog, what do you think about our action in Libya?

    No qualifiers, no framing, just a very simple and honest question.

    Are you prepared to respond, or are you only going to tell us what other people think?

    I would like to know more about these rebels we are supporting and I would like to hear clear objectives and an end-game. I would also like congress to be consulted with something other than a long-distance letter.

    What are your thoughts on our action in Libya?

  16. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    I also think we never should have gotten involved, and left it up to the EU. I have said as much, so your assertion that every republican in the nation was in favor of this is utter bullshit.

    “John Bolton said on Fox News that the Obama administration was “wrong to base its decision to use force” due to the support of the Arab League or the United Nations.”

    Seeing as the Arab League is now condemning our action along with veto members of the UNSC, I’d say Bolton (whom I dislike immensely) had a point, wouldn’t you?

  17. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Since dog prefers to tell us what others think, let’s go with that

    “Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, said Obama lacks the constitutional authority to conduct military operations in Libya.”

    “Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC Monday “this isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.”

    “Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) also said the president should have consulted Congress.”

    Dog, do you agree with these members of your party or do you disagree with these members of your party?

  18. Tex Taylor says:

    Dawg is nothing but a lefty political hack and MSNBC parrot.

    Believe Elric used to call them drones, and in Dawg’s case, Elric would be correct. We all know that. Trying to make sense of anything Dawg says is a waste of time and exercise in futility, because no sane individual is capable of making sense of the clinically insane. You simply diagnose him, and put him in the rubber room wrapped tight.

    Add to the fact, Dawg is a known liar (claims to have a PHD in the physical science {snicker}) and at best a room temperature IQ, Dawg represent the clinical definition of Obama rube and progressive propagandist.Think of Dawg as the male equivalent of the young black woman who cried when Obama won and thought her rent and gas would be paid for. Naive, gullible and stupid, with a penchant for hypocrisy and double standards, Dawg is forced to ignore statements like this without so much as explanation or excuse.

    “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” – Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007

  19. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Sure got quiet around here….

  20. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Funny regressives were never worried about the limits of POTUS power when dubby was prez. Invade, torture, wiretap…do what ever you like sir. Hypocrisy.

  21. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “No qualifiers, no framing, just a very simple and honest question.”

    That’s all you ever do bozo….

  22. Tex Taylor says:

    That’s all you ever do bozo….

    Really? You get asked a legitimate question nicely by Huck and still you evade, stumble and squeal like a pig with your stupid, repetitious cliches as response. And that is all you have. And that’s about what I would expect from somebody as profoundly stupid as you are Dawg.

    Why don’t you answer the man’s question Gutless? Here’s why.

    Because you’re up to your eyeballs with personal investment in a huge failure. You don’t have guts, much less the sense to admit you’ve been had by that fraud for a President; that you’re nothing but a stupid puppet on a string for failed ideology, that you’re a tool and failed hack with no measurable talent in anything of value; and you’re nothing but useful idiot for America’s enemies. About the sorriest excuse for a man I’ve ever read.

    Change your damn name so I don’t have to be humiliated you live in my state.

  23. bvilleyellowdog says:

    It’s pretty funny watching the regressives gore each other over Libya. Neocons vs isolationists. Mud fight!!!

  24. Tex Taylor says:

    You still haven’t had the guts to answer Huck’s legitimate question maggot. Cat got the Yeller Dawg’s tongue as he runs like hell from another fight? Worthless as teats on a boar hog.

    Where’s the Graychin been Dawg? He always was a lot smarter than you. He had the good sense to shut up when it became apparent just how wrong you maggots were in 2008, and how you’ve been exposed as frauds.

    Not you…

  25. Alfie says:

    Dog even when you think you got something you got nothing but dog shit. You are so eager to gobble the goo of the heads without having an idea for yourself. Sad.
    You refight the argument of Dubya. This is so lame on many grounds.
    You use the Politico article(s) to lambaste the 2012 contenders et al. You seem not to delve into the reality that although the 2012’ers seem to like the idea of intervening in Libya,a policy I fully disagree with,they also seem (especially Romney) to be more upset with and are attacking Obamas lack of a fuller FP picture.

  26. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Losts of dust mite poo in the corners. Time for a fumigation.
    Meanwhille “it’s OK if you are a regressive neocon”

  27. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    ““No qualifiers, no framing, just a very simple and honest question.”

    That’s all you ever do bozo….”

    You’re right. All I ever do is ask simple, honest questions.

    Too bad you can’t ever answer them.

    “Neocons vs isolationists. Mud fight!!!”

    With Barack Obama as the Neocon.

  28. bvilleyellowdog says:

    GOP presidential hopefuls are trashing the president in ways they insisted were near-traitorous when Democrats said anything similar about President Bush. (Let me be clear: I don’t think leaders of either party should be muzzled when they disagree with a president about military intervention; I object to the persistent GOP double-standard.) Poor Mitt Romney, whose every flip-flop seems to be cataloged on YouTube: In 2007 he agreed with Fox’s Sean Hannity that Democrats were “playing politics with war” in Iraq. He even quoted Sen. Arthur Vandenberg’s oft-repeated, rarely adhered-to aphorism that “politics stops at the water’s edge,” adding, “I’m afraid Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have gone beyond that water’s edge.” Of course, on Monday Romney trashed President Obama on Libya by blasting his “absence of a discernible foreign policy” to Hugh Hewitt, blaming said absence on Obama’s alleged “fundamental disbelief in American exceptionalism. In the president’s world, all nations have ‘common interests,’ the lines between good and evil are blurred, America’s history merits apology … And without a compass to guide him in our increasingly turbulent world, he’s tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.”

    Likewise Sarah Palin babbled about something vaguely like Vandenberg’s aphorism, telling an Indian audience “as we travel to foreign soil, we don’t criticize our President’s foreign policy.” Then she criticized it as “dithering.”

    Newt Gingrich has never been shy about criticizing a president’s foreign policy — as long as that president is a Democrat. In May 1999 he blasted President Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo:

    “Instead of Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘talk softly and carry a big stick,’ we have yelled and carried a toothpick,” said Gingrich. “And what has happened? The people we are protecting are driven out or killed or raped, the people that are under the shelter of the U.S. are no longer in Kosovo.” Since then, of course, Kosovo has mostly been judged a success.

    Now Gingrich is criticizing Obama’s Libyan strategy as being exclusively about “opportunism and news media publicity.”

    By far, though, the worst GOP hypocrisy comes from failed 2008 candidate John McCain, who is saber-rattling for even more U.S. action in Libya than Obama proposes. But McCain was for Gadhafi before he was against him: As Justin Elliott reveals, McCain and his sidekicks Sen. Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman visited Libya only18 months ago and even discussed renewing arms sales to the dictator McCain now despises. “We discussed the possibility of moving ahead with the provision of non-lethal defense equipment to the government of Libya,” McCain told a press conference, noting that “ties between the United States and Libya have taken a remarkable and positive turn in recent years.”

  29. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “You’re right. All I ever do is ask simple, honest questions.”
    Bullpucky LIAR. Notorious. How two faced can you get?

  30. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    When unable to debate points, turn to personal attacks.

    Face it. You don’t want to have this conversation because your man Obama has become what you hate—a “regressive” Neocon. He has continued more Bush-era policies than he has done away with, continuing to flex American muscle in the Middle East for the purpose of regime change while disguising it all as an eminent threat to America. Barack Obama has become Bush 2.0 and it is driving you and yours absolutely mad.

  31. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Warrantless wiretapping?— check
    Holding prisoners without due process?—check
    Rendition?—check
    CIA Black Sites?—check
    Presidential signing statements?—check
    Tax breaks for the rich?—check
    Pre-emptive military action?—check

    and the list of Bush-era policies continued by the Neoconservative Obama Administration goes on and on and on…….

  32. Rutherford says:

    Dog, I hate to say it but Huck’s last comment has some sting to it.

    I’m feeling a real sense of dread right now as an Obama supporter. These are dark days dude.

  33. bvilleyellowdog says:

    “You refight the argument of Dubya. This is so lame on many grounds”
    dubby is gone, the Cheney zombie ventures ever less frequently from his crypt. But the the double faced rabble regressives stumble on.

    Obama’s biggest mistake was not purging ever single Bush appointee on day one. Dubby poison regrettably lives one

  34. bvilleyellowdog says:

    list of Bush-era policies continued by the Neoconservative Obama Administration goes on and on and on…….and regressives that lurk hear support everyone but like to slam POTUS at the same time. Hypocritical fleas.

  35. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Regressives get thier noise from the breakfast table – from cowards:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/23/959267/-Fox-News-Has-A-Cowardly-Hissy-Fit

  36. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Are you a conservative pundit, elected official or presidential contender? Having trouble figuring out what you’re supposed to say about this whole thing in Libya? Obama bad, sure. But Gadhafi also bad, and bombs good! What a conundrum!

    People in the press, on the Internet, and in the government are having a serious and passionate debate about the merits, goals, legality and morality of the bombing campaign — but that whole “nuance” thing is best left to Democrats, French people and other effete non-Americans. Conservatives need a stark, binary black-and-white approach to every major issue. And we’re here to help. Just answer these simple yes-or-no questions, and find your sound bite!

    http://www.salon.com/news/libya/index.html?story=%2Fpolitics%2Fwar_room%2F2011%2F03%2F23%2Flibya_response_chart

    Feel better now?

  37. Rutherford says:

    Obama’s biggest mistake was not purging ever single Bush appointee on day one.

    The only problem with that assessment Dog is that Bob Gates has been one of the saner voices regarding Libya. From news accounts, he has hardly been a hawk on this. On the contrary, it’s Hillary and Susan Rice that pushed the no-fly-zone agenda.

  38. Tex Taylor says:

    Hey Yeller Belly,

    I ought to contact an attorney to have you stoned for plagiarism for that last screed. If you’re going to copy somebody’s commentary maggot, at least give them the credit for it. 😡

    Dawg, you’re nothing but a chickenshit agitator and mindless puppet on a string, who regurgitates other’s material, claiming it as your own.

    Answer Huck’s question coward….

  39. bvilleyellowdog says:

    VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?
    GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive … This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.

    [and]

    GINGRICH: I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot … I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

    So, what changed? It’s simple. On March 7, President Obama hadn’t announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. On March 23, U.S. forces were actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya.

    In other words, the Republican position on all issues for the next 20 or so months: if Obama is for it, they’re against it. If Obama is against it, they’re for it. Always.

    Does anyone besides the Newt himself think he could ever be POTUS? What a twit.

  40. bvilleyellowdog says:

    dust mite twitter….

  41. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Have some paranoia?
    “What I find particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Qaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

    … I am praying that Barack Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisors will not take us all down a road that seems ripe for another, ominous application of this precedent, with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, for the United States and for freedom-loving people elsewhere. A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.”

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/today-in-breitbart-funded-alarmist-nonsense-.html

  42. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Meanwhile the imposition of KKKristian facist sharia law goes insane:
    “That the anti-choice movement is mostly a Christianist movement bent on imposing its religious beliefs on the public at large is one of the most under-discussed aspects of the abortion debate. This law should highlight the theocratic underpinnings of the anti-choice movement. Most and probably all crisis pregnancy centers are religious organizations that object to abortion because it conflicts with their religious dogma about female sexuality, women’s roles, and their belief about when the soul enters the body. Requiring women to sit through a lecture on Christian ethics about sexuality before getting an abortion should be a clear-cut case of a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, ”

    requires that women seeking abortion must go to a crisis pregnancy center, to submit to a lecture on the supposed evils of abortion; a lecture that will almost surely include misinformation on the dangers of abortion. In passing this law, South Dakota hit a triple, attacking reproductive rights, privacy rights and religious freedom with one law aimed at the single abortion clinic left in the entire state of South Dakota.

    What selfrighous thugs

    http://www.alternet.org/story/150345/christian_intruders%3A_new_law_will_force_women_to_listen_to_religious_lectures_before_getting_an_abortion?akid=6719.275621.19CAu_&rd=1&t=5

  43. Tex Taylor says:

    Gutless, you still haven’t Huck’s legitimate question.

    From your abortion screed from above, you do make it easy to determine what part you copied and pasted, and what part you personally added. Your own attempt is the first sentence and the last sentence, right? 🙂

    The one portion where the typos and misspellings appear, Yeller Belly’s name is plastered all over it. Congratulations. You almost spelled self-righteous correct. You only missed by a hyphen and two letters. But you continue to misspell “fascist”, a word you should be intimately familiar with by now.

    A question for you Dawg. As one slowly quickly begins to decay, are they capable of shame or embarrassment? Is there any pain?

  44. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    Newt’s just being a dick now…

  45. Alfie says:

    In an update to one of my salient points in the post. UAE and Qatar have ponied up military assets. 12 and 2 fighters respectively for enforcement of the no fly zone.
    As for the whole NATO angle I hate to say it but the only member that has it right is Turkey.

  46. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Newt is always a dick. Nothing new there – how many other two-faced regressives are there? Probably easier to count the ones who aren’t. Hmmmm… not a one. INCLUDING (D)’S fixed that for ya dog

  47. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “how many other two-faced regressives are there? ”

    Less than the number of shit-talking democrats who have now turned Neocon to support Obama’s War.

    But we know you don’t want to have that conversation, so please continue to bury your head in the sand or Obama’s asshole, or any other warm place that makes you happy.

    “UAE and Qatar have ponied up military assets. 12 and 2 fighters respectively for enforcement of the no fly zone.”

    But they won’t engage targets so all they are doing is giving lip service.

  48. bvilleyellowdog says:

    Regressives cannot stand to look in the mirror …

  49. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “flip flop flip – what an idiot”

    Unlike Obama on:

    Warrantless wiretapping?
    Holding prisoners without due process?
    Rendition?
    CIA Black Sites?
    Presidential signing statements?
    Tax breaks for the rich?
    Pre-emptive military action?

    Where’s your outrage/disgust over those flips by your Neocon president?

    “Regressives cannot stand to look in the mirror …”

    Dog, what do you think about our action in Libya?

    Until you can bring yourself to answer that question, it is obvious that you are the only one around here in denial.

  50. bvilleyellowdog says:

    and regressive heads explode – WIN!!!

  51. Alfie says:

    You are one cocky little retard dog. You’re a pussy who wouldn’t answer a simple question and then you claim “win”. You’re too much.

  52. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    I think its hilarious how the Neocon Yellowdog is calling us out for flip-flopping while he suddenly supports going to preemptive war without congressional approval against countries that pose us no threat, all to protect Europe’s oil.

    And then calls it a win…lol.

    Libya will be Obama’s undoing.

  53. Alfie says:

    So I’ve been able to look deeper behind some of the nuance of this war. In doing so I’ve been inspired to share that stuff in my upcoming posts.
    R2R=bad news for the world or benign internationalism?
    Also after some soul wrenching I have to ask. Was genocide on the menu in Libya? Really!?

Comments are closed.