Top 5 Leftists Who Have Most Embarrassed Themselves With Their Pathetic Defense Of Obama's War In Libya
Posted By Chris Queen On April 1, 2011 The past two-plus years of Barack Obama <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=1511> 's presidency have been simply mind-boggling. In just 26 short months, we've seen a president tour the world apologizing for America's power and might. We've watched as the government took over one-sixth of the nation's economy. We've witnessed an economic recovery that has needlessly been extended by Keynesian theory in action. It's almost surreal to see the Obama administration at work. But there's nothing quite so mystifying right now as Obama's military action in Libya <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Libya%20and%20the%20U.S.html> . I've been in a constant state of confusion since the fighting in Libya began. Why are we stepping in? What are our interests there? We're OK with getting rid of Qaddafi <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2092%20> (however you spell his name today), but that's not our reason for acting. President Obama is willing to cede our leadership role in the matter to others - including France! - yet, as always, we're doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. Our economy is in crisis, yet we're spending hand over fist to fight a war with no clear objective. And now there's even talk of arming Libyan rebels who may have ties to al Qaeda <http://davidswindle.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/31/did-anyone-ever-expect-it-w ould-come-to-this-with-obama-frontpage-magazine/> . You read that right. FrontPage Magazine <http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/31/protecting-the-enemy-in-libya/> reports this fact <http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/31/protecting-the-enemy-in-libya/> . As NewsReal Blog's own David Swindle put it so well: There's actually a debate in this country - and in our government's leadership - about whether we should arm the barbarians who attacked us on 9/11. Just sit for a moment and let that fact sink in. Sure, Libya has been a thorn in our side for many years. Yes, Qaddafi's a madman and ought to be removed from power when the time is right. But the fact of the matter is that waging war in Libya right now, with the opposition forces that are in place, is dangerous and irresponsible. And that's not even to mention the fact that the way in which Obama has gone about prosecuting the war is unconstitutional. Yet one can't help but notice the way the Left has fallen all over itself to defend this war. That's right: the very same folks who heartily condemned Bush's war on terror have become the staunched defenders of Obama's war. >From the administration, to the mainstream media, to the blogosphere, the Left has made a point of defending this military intervention in Libya. It's both pathetic and embarrassing. Here's a list of the Top 5 Leftists who most embarrassed themselves with their pathetic defense of Obama's war in Libya. We <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarra ssed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/2/> 'll start with one administration flack forced to play inane word games. 5. Jay Carney Sometimes I feel sorry for the press secretaries in Washington. They have to make statements that are not their own in front of often hostile reporters (especially in Republican administrations). They wind up having to bear the brunt of their statements face to face and find themselves in "kill the messenger" situations. Poor Jay Carney. As White House press secretary, he has to stand at the podium and spout the claptrap that the administration tells him to say. This week, he was forced to play word games with the media when it came to questions about Libya. Carney found himself in the position of defending Obama's war in Libya by saying it <http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/30/white_houses_jay_carney_do_no t_call_libya_a_war.html> 's not a war. "It is use of military force in concert with our allies," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in response to a question asking if we are at war with Libya. "What it is not, in the context of what we live in today - we use today, anything like a situation you have at one point 170,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq," Carney said. "That's not what's happening in Libya." Not calling this action in Libya a war gives us wacky terms like "kinetic military action" and other word games to avoid calling it what it is. Politicians, pundits and administration flacks alike on the Left will stumble over semantics all day long to get away from using that three letter word. But, as a member of the Obama administration, at least Carney gets to make his digs at the Bush administration. "See, this isn't a war. War is what those other guys did." The great theme of the Obama administration is that Barack Obama is not George Bush. If you look at what's going on in Libya, the picture is different than the one the Left wants to paint. Missiles? Check. Covert operations? Check. Actions toward regime change? Check. Talk of "boots on the ground?" Check. Rumors of plans to arm rebels? Check. Sounds like a war to me. But, instead of outlining objectives or making substantive defenses for military action, Jay Carney has to stand there with a straight face and tell the media that this isn't a war. It's almost enough to make you view him with pity, isn't it? Next: One of the <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarra ssed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/3/> "usual suspects" in defense of a Democrat-declared war. 4. Rachel Maddow One of the "usual suspects" in the defense of Obama is MSNBC's Rachel Maddow <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2345> . She's become such a force in Obamapologetics that NewsReal Blog recently launched the series "True Twit <http://www.newsrealblog.com/category/cablenews/msnbc/rachel-maddow-true-twi t/> " dedicated to revealing the idiocy of her program. (Major props go to Megan Fox and David Forsmark, since they watch Maddow and report on her so we don't have to.) Last week, Megan Fox reported on Maddow <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/23/true-twit-part-7-obamas-war-could-he al-americas-reputation-that-bushs-war-destroyed/> 's defense of the Libyan situation in a "True Twit" piece: On Monday night's TRMS, Rachel Maddow began the program with a montage of presidential announcements of military action from Ronald Reagan to George Bush. Each one was done from the White House in a formal setting. This, Maddow says, was presidential "chest thumping" that is just soooo last century. Our thoroughly modern president is far more secure or awesome, or something, because he just jogs up to whatever microphone is nearest and announces his wars in between shout-outs in Spanish while slurping down cocktails on vacation (I mean a "trade trip." ) Maddow thinks his lack of gravitas will make the Muslim world who hates us just roll over for a belly rub from the great Obama. Maddow is operating from the "Everybody Loves Barry" viewpoint. Like much of the rest of the Left, she simply assumes that just because she's impressed by Obama, so is everybody else. That notion couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, others throughout the world <http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-world-leaders-view -obama.html> have used terms like "incompetent," "naive," "impotent," and "amateurish" to describe the president. If other civilized nations see him this way, why should she expect the Arab world to see him any differently? By Tuesday night, she had changed her tune. Instead of focusing on how the invasion of Libya would help heal our reputation as a country that keeps invading Muslim countries, Maddow reversed her position from the night before entitling her show the "Coalition of the Not-So-Willing." I guess she couldn't help but notice that the international consensus was neither international nor in agreement as she said it was the night before. It's worth noting that President Bush mustered up the support of 30 countries <http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-mor e-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya> in dealing with Saddam Hussein, as opposed to Obama's coalition of 16 nations. Those figures alone should neutralize any argument that Obama's the great coalition-builder the Left says he is. No wonder Maddow backed off her effusive praise of Obama's efforts a mere 24 hours later. Next: War in Libya is good because it <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarra ssed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/4/> 's under Obama's "leadership". 3. Ed Schultz One of the most hilarious statements on the war in Libya came from professional blowhard Ed Schultz of MSNBC and far-left talk radio. On his March 28 radio show <http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/03/29/ed-schultz-flip-flops- libya-span-single-sentence> , Schulz revealed that the war in Libya is great because we haven't invaded anybody (you know, like Bush did), but on second thought, we have. His words: Keep in mind, this has been a very decisive move and a decisive process throughout all of this with President Obama. And I don't care if you like the guy or not. The fact is that he collected the facts, he worked with people, he worked with countries, he diplomatically went through the channels necessary to see this, to head towards a successful conclusion for the Libyan people, and we haven't invaded anybody, or have we? To me it sound like Schultz doesn't have any better grasp on the situation than the rest of us do - or than President Obama, for that matter. Just last week, Schultz laid out his case for war in Libya in a Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-schultz/why-i-support-president-o_b_839800 .html> column <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-schultz/why-i-support-president-o_b_839800 .html> . Oh, and just for the record: he uses the word "invade." President Obama explained this won't be a long-term operation. Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months. But the majority of Americans don't want any part of a third war in a Muslim country. The president's base is angry because we're firing millions of dollars of missiles at Libya instead of investing in America's infrastructure. On the other side - the Republicans are hammering the president not because he is not invading the entire Middle East, but because he's not doing it the way they would want to do it. President Obama has decided on a more focused, realistic approach. He's trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi - this is the human thing to do - from slaughtering his own people. [...] This president, President Obama, has made his choice. And it is his leadership. He inherited Iraq. He inherited Afghanistan. And now, he has made a decision to invade Libya. [...] But remember - and this needs to be pointed out - there have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration. So y'all just hush. It's all right, because "this president" - you know, the Great One - said it's OK to invade Libya, even though there's no clear objective. And the objective doesn't really matter, because the Great One doesn't lie or play "fear games" like that evil Bush who wanted to legitimately protect American interests and end the murderous reign of a dictatorial thug. Don't make me laugh, Ed. You'd support Obama if he invaded Canada, just because it's "his leadership." The Left doesn't need to know any more than that. Next: Why the Left desperately wants the war in Libya to succeed <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarra ssed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/5/> . 2.Thomas L Friedman New York Times columnist Thomas L Friedman revealed more than he probably should have about the level of desperation the Left possesses when it comes to Libya. The column, entitled "Looking for Luck in Libya <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1> ," lauds Obama's decision to act in Libya on humanitarian grounds. Welcome to the Middle East of 2011! You want the truth about it? You can't handle the truth. The truth is that it's a dangerous, violent, hope-filled and potentially hugely positive or explosive mess - fraught with moral and political ambiguities. We have to build democracy in the Middle East we've got, not the one we want - and this is the one we've got. That's why I am proud of my president, really worried about him, and just praying that he's lucky. Unlike all of us in the armchairs, the president had to choose, and I found the way he spelled out his core argument on Monday sincere: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And, as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." I am glad we have a president who sees America that way. Obama sees America that way merely because only a Leftist views the military as a humanitarian force to be dispatched where there are atrocities, regardless of the lack of American interests in the area. But Friedman thinks that more action may be necessary: I don't know Libya, but my gut tells me that any kind of decent outcome there will require boots on the ground - either as military help for the rebels to oust Qaddafi as we want, or as post-Qaddafi peacekeepers and referees between tribes and factions to help with any transition to democracy. The crowning achievement of Friedman's column comes at the end, when he reveals just how desperate the Left is for an Obama victory: I hope President Obama is lucky. I hope Qaddafi's regime collapses like a sand castle, that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet. Then U.S. prestige will be enhanced and this humanitarian mission will have both saved lives and helped to lock another Arab state into the democratic camp. Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky. This is the real reason the Left wants us to achieve victory in Libya for Obama. It's less about doing the right thing than it is about raising the level of America's prestige (read: Obama's prestige). This is what matters to the Left - far above our national interests, at least. Next: Whose national interests really matter? <http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarra ssed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/6/> 1. Hillary Clinton Anytime we're at war, there is always a debate about the question whether the military action serves our country's interests. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton <http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18> , in her defense of Obama's war in Libya, created a new justification for war <http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032811/content/01125106.guest.h tml> : the national interests of the allies who ask for our help. She told NBC's David Gregory: I mean did Libya attack us? No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region, and do they neighbor two countries? You just mentioned one, Egypt; the other, Tunisia, that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders. Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And, you know, David that raises a very important point 'cause you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan. You know, we asked our allies, our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us, as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies this was in their vital national interests. That's right, folks. Hillary Clinton thinks it's all right to fight a war to defend other country's interests - because they asked us so kindly. Will Saletan at Slate (not exactly a right-winger) put it this way <http://www.slate.com/id/2289568/pagenum/all/#p2> : It's worse than outsourcing. Outsourcing is when you hire somebody abroad to do what you want. In Libya, we're doing the opposite. We're hiring ourselves out to do what somebody abroad wants. [...] I don't see any basis for that in the text or spirit of the Constitution. And when many of the regimes being consulted aren't exactly democratic themselves, I wonder where this doctrine of deference will lead us. I couldn't have said it much better myself. We can't merely go off and fight wars because other countries need us. If we did, we'd have our hands in just about every conflict on the globe. I hear the "world policeman" analogy to describe what American can't let ourselves become militarily. A better metaphor would be that of a mob kingpin, taking requests and using our might to do the bidding of others. We cannot put ourselves in that position time and time again, regardless of what the Left thinks. The logic of Hillary Clinton's argument for war with Libya is deeply flawed and potentially dangerous. And it doesn't justify at all what we're doing there. - The fact of the matter is that the Left is dying to support Obama's actions in Libya, regardless of how flimsy the justifications are for the war. The same Leftists who vocally decried the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and called Bush a "murderer" and a "war criminal" are now doing their dead level best to defend the military intervention in Libya. They're doing so because they want to convince voters that Obama is a strong, decisive leader - precisely the leader that he is not. War with Libya won't transform Obama into that leader, either. Regardless of whether one thinks this war is justifiable, the arguments Leftists have used to defend it are anything but convincing. They're pathetic. - Chris Queen hails from Covington, GA. Check out his blog, Random Thoughts >From The Revolution <http://chrisqueen.wordpress.com> , or follow him on Twitter <http://twitter.com/chrisqueen> . _____ Article printed from NewsReal Blog: http://www.newsrealblog.com URL to article: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/01/top-5-leftists-who-have-most-embarras sed-themselves-with-their-pathetic-defense-of-obamas-war-in-libya/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
