Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Zevico]

[q]It's been hilarious to watch the Republican wing nuts and their reaction to Libya. [q]
Which ones?

In March they were screaming the President wasn't taking enough action and direct military response was needed.

Who?

In May they were screaming & foaming at the mouth declaring it was unconstitutional for the President to support the NATO operation in Libya without a Congressional declaration of war

The very same people? And if so, why is that inconsistent with their support for action against Libya in the first place? Plainly enough it isn't--they may view congressional authorisation as more important.

even though Bush did the same in Iraq,

There was the Iraq War Resolution.

and now that the Rebels have taken Tripoli they declare the whole thing a waste of time
Who, and what were they claiming before the war started?

I'd really like to see who it is that you think to all of these positions all at once. By the way, there are Democrats who opposed the war some or all of these grounds.

and that Obama never had anything to do with the victory.

Name names. Who's claiming that?

It's very easy to make these kind of claims but when you get down to the details it's really quite questionable.
"Wing nuts"? Who, why? When? When were their positions inconsistent and why? It's really a chore to read this proclamation of yours as if it's the god's own truth without the least bit of supporting evidence, particularly because you could just name all of these "wing nuts" whose positions are inconsistent, and explain why they're inconsistent instead.

[Dinner]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162907/cognitive-dissonance-conservative-media-respond-libyas-liberation

[Zevico]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/162907...yas-liberation

I take it you adopt that wholesale. Very well.

Conservatives say the United States has an obligation to intervene militarily to depose hostile regimes such as Qaddafi’s.

Who? Second, Qaddafi changed sides. Did anyone not notice that? How he stopped his nuclear program and started giving information about Al Qaeda fighter from Libya who--coincidence!--happen to be part of the rebels opposing him? Yes, he still probably supported other terrorist groups in any case, but so did a large number of other coutnries.
In any case, there's no doubting that Qadaffi was a brutal dictator. But no one--NO ONE--called for his downfall until the rebellion. The author's statement is a lazy generalisation which is simply not founded in fact. One could apply this generalisation to China, Burma, and any other nation whose foreign policy is to varying degrees hostile to the United States. That doesn't mean there's a case for invading China or Burma, to pick two countries out of a hat. And nor was there ever a case for invading Libya on national security grounds.

Other conservative outlets took it upon themselves to finesse the fact that Barack Obama just helped overthrow a terrorism-sponsoring tyrant

Yes he is. So is Syria (not bombing them), North Korea (not bombing them), Saudi Arabia (American ally)--do I need to go on? Support for terrorism is quite widespread. Taken by itself, it's not always and necessarily a sufficient reason to bomb a country. Particularly because Qaddaffi changed sides there was no case for bombing him; particularly because he changed sides there was no case for charging him for war crimes (hint: one way of sending a bad signal to other dictators is by telling them that at the next moment of instability the west, who supposeldy welcome a pro-Western change of heart, will now imprison them for life at the nearest opportunity).

“So Qaddafi has been toppled, but only after a notably weak and unnecessarily prolonged campaign,” Stanley Kurtz [who supported the war-Zev's note] writes in National Review. Rather than seeing our strategic objective achieved without a single American casualty as a good thing, he complains of “a reluctance to see American casualties.”

First everyone took their damn time in achieving an objective Obama promised to achieve in days. By the way, that promise was a self-apparent embarassment to the United States and to the West on the day it was made. It's a serious blow to the Americans' credibility to promise in days and achieve in half a year. I mean it. What kind of President makes that ridiculous promise? At least Bush proclaimed the end of "Saddam"--he actually accomplished something. Obama didn't even have that.

Kurtz writes (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...tanley-kurtz):

America put its credibility and prestige on the line in Libya, and we have fortunately escaped the potential disaster of seeing this intervention fail — although our escape has been far too narrow for comfort. Just a month ago, it looked as though the Libya campaign was nearly lost. With a stalemate on the ground, Ramadan looming, and NATO authorization expiring soon thereafter, victory seemed to be slipping from NATO’s grasp. The assassination of a high-level rebel commander and the resulting divisions between Islamist and tribal elements of the rebels sounded like a death knell for the resistance. Then everything turned around.

What happened? We may learn more about that in the days ahead. Preliminary reports suggest that, despite denials, NATO changed its tactics under pressure of the deadline for re-authorization. NATO began offering more aggressive support to the rebels, by attacking Qaddafi’s strictly defensive positions. In other words, we may have finally won this war only when we recognized that it was a war, and stopped treating it as a strictly humanitarian intervention.

He does not lament the absence of American casualties--he states quite clearly that it is possible that the NATO bombing campaign wasn't being run properly until the last month of this war. He also states that there was a higher risk of American casualties in employing a particular strategy, but he thinks that risk was worth it. How terribly partisan!

Kurtz writes:

That is all to the good, but the damage done to the credibility of NATO’s defense capacity by months of unnecessary stalemate has been substantial.

And that is a very proper conclusion.

Kurtz continues:

Above all, President Obama prolonged this war by his conscious decision to “lead from behind” — to assist and orchestrate NATO’s efforts, but without providing the close-in air support that could have ended the conflict far sooner.

Yes, yes he did.

Kurtz continues:

In part, Obama’s policy stemmed from a reluctance to see American casualties, since low-flying close-air-support planes could have been shot down.

Quite possible. But not the only cause according to Kurtz, and it's quite misleading to suggest that this was Kurtz's only qualm with the effort.

And in part, Obama was determined that Libya should stand as a precedent for multilateral interventions under United Nations auspices, fought according to U.N. rules of war, and, implicitly, subject to the authority of the International Criminal Court.

That did involve a substantial waste of time, effort and political capital.

And all the while, the rebellion continued unaided (which is not to say that aiding was sensible in the first place). There are many reasons to regard this operation as ham fisted even if one assumes its necessity, which I don't, and frankly, I don't see the case for invasion at all.

Of course, the author ignores leading foreign policy analysts and intellectuals who consistently opposed this effort--writers on PJ Media, and the National Review Online, and to name just a few, Barry Rubin, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew McCarthy--and equally, completely ignores "right wing" anaylsts and intellectuals who wholeheartedly supported the Libya war, like the editors of the National Review (see their editorial), or John Yoo, a former Bush DoJ official.

The inferences of this author and, by implication, yourself, are drawn from what appears on the front page of a few selected websites (not much by way of Libya headlines: Damn those partisan hacks!), when one could easily point to, say, Hanson or Rubin or McCarthy's anaylses running on the front of NRO on these issues.

I could delve further and draw even more examples of consistent and coherent support for political positions in favour and against the Libyan intervention (as well as in favour or against congressional authorisation, and in favour or against the War Powers Act). Instead I'll just direct you to the PJM and NRO archives.

The author of the article you quote, in short, makes a specious generalisation; fails to outline what inconsistency, if any, is held by the authors of the pieces he writes on; fails to outline what makes them intellectually dishonest (which is the very definition of a hack); and then concludes that this is the substance of all formulated opposition to the Libyan war effort. Which simply indicates his own unwillingness to actually do anything more than take in a few website front pages and read one article by Stanley Kurtz.

[DaShi]

How ironic.

[Zevico]

I should add, by the way, that opposition to the Libyan effort is not monopolised by "Republicans." See for example Jim Fallows (Carter's speechwriter) or Jeffrey Golberg in The Atlantic (who calls it a 7th tier priority....which he's stilling willing to back up, but also calls it poorly thought out--my god he sounds just like Stanley Kurtz, that right wing partisan hack!), or...do I need to go on?

Edit: Fallow's article on this is excellent btw:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/on-libya-what-happens-then/72741/

Or Goldberg:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/some-discomfiting-questions-about-libya/72707/

[DaShi]

Were they screaming that Obama wasn't taking enough action and suggesting military action?

[Zevico]

Were they screaming that Obama wasn't taking enough action and suggesting military action?

Does it matter?
Once upon a time, the United States went to war and its various administrations consciously acted in order to serve American interests. Now, it goes to war to further the ludicrous doctrines of Samantha Powers and company.

[DaShi]

Unless your just going on a nonsensical rant, yes it does matter. Since the rest of your post is another nonsensical rant, I'm going with you just ranting...again.

[DaShi]

It is hilarious watching you lose site of the issue so easily just to rant about Obama. Oerdin and others don't need to do anything to destroy your credibility other than let you keep posting.

[Zevico]

I'll try to take the question seriously if you insist.

Were they screaming that Obama wasn't taking enough action and suggesting military action?

Who is "they"?
Are you referring to Victor Davis Hanson, Rubin and McCarthy? No. They were against the Libyan intervention from the beginning. And they've criticised it throughout. McCarthy, by the way, has actually quite strongly opposed any War Powers criticisms of Obama as he thinks that the War Powers Act is invalid. (He does think a referral to Congress would have been prudent, however).

Edit: and if you don't understand any of my posts, please specify what you don't understand.

[DaShi]

I understand your posts perfectly. They just don't matter. It's you have fallen off to a tangent to grind your ax.

Who is they? Your schitck is getting to Ben-like levels.

[Zevico]

It's you have fallen off to a tangent to grind your ax.

Please specify where you say I've gone off tangent.

Who is they? Your schitck is getting to Ben-like levels.

I'm asking a serious question. I find your question vague. I apologise if I didn't make it clear earlier: I'm asking you to rephrase it.

In answer to your contention that I went off tangent:

I discussed 6 writers (4 Republicans, 2 Democrats), all of whom have either opposed or expressed doubts about the Libyan intervention. Are you referring to them? Well again--none of those opposed to the war called for earlier action against Libya, and none called for "military action" (I assume that means troops on the ground?).
Oerdin's article specifically discussed Kurtz. So I quoted Kurtz to show, blow-by-blow, that the criticisms levelled by Kurtz against Obama were neither undue, inconsistent, nor intellectually dishonest. I even went to the trouble of posting a similar analysis by a Democrat.

[DaShi]

Just one example: If you can't see this, you're hopeless.

Once upon a time, the United States went to war and its various administrations consciously acted in order to serve American interests. Now, it goes to war to further the ludicrous doctrines of Samantha Powers and company.

This had nothing to do with the question I asked.

[DaShi]

In the meantime, let's talk about how ridiculous http://pajamasmedia.com/ is.

Remember that silly thread that Hera made about the MLK statue?

This site decided that "there's a story here."

The new statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. opened on the National Mall yesterday, with much hoopla as well as with much controversy. It was sculpted by a Chinese artist named Lei Yixin, shown above with his prototype of the King statue.

Denver based artist Ed Dwigh [1]t, who was on the planning committee for the King memorial, was anything but happy. Dr. King, Dwight said [2], “would be turning over in his grave if he knew that the artist who sculpted King was from a Communist country.” Others added that they thought King looked confrontational, and that his face looked Asian rather than American.

One thing struck me as I looked at the photos of the King Memorial. Having toured China, and having seen scores of huge Mao statues still on display throughout the country, I immediately thought that the King Memorial looks very similar to all those giant Mao statues glorifying the “Great Helmsman” in the People’s Republic of China.



See here for yourself in the following two examples, and look closely at the face of Mao and compare it to that of Dr. King:

As the report accompanying this photo notes, the statues are going up again throughout China, and older ones are being carefully restored. They are all quite huge, and have the same effect when one looks at them as one has looking at the giant King now in Washington, D.C.

So am I not surprised, after a quick internet search, to find out that sculptor Le Yixin is — yes, you guessed it– most well known for his sculptures of Mao Zedong.

So, our greatest civil rights leader, a man dedicated to non-violence, Ghandian principles applied to oppression within a democratic society, is honored by a sculptor whose background is that of fashioning tributes to one of the late century’s most horrible tyrants and mass murderers.

The inevitable question: What would Martin Luther King, Jr. think? And how would he feel about being put up on a pedestal and represented by a giant Mao-like sculpture that in appearance and impact looks like a classic work of Maoist propaganda art? It is in the genre of Chinese style “socialist realism,” resembling the classic works of that style that was common in the Soviet Union from the 1920s on.

I don’t think Dr. King, looking down from above, is very happy today.

These guys are "leading analysts"?

[Zevico]

Look--a human interest story! How terrible! It must mean that every academic, journalist, and writer on that website is an amateur.