► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘libya’

Essential VDH

by Iron Fist ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at March 31st, 2011 - 2:32 pm

Go thou and read thereof, for it is good:

Libya: The Genesis of a Bad Idea
March 30, 2011 – 7:18 pm – by Victor Davis Hanson

The president spoke Monday night to clarify our intervention in Libya. Instead he made things worse, and could not explain the mission (are we/are we not after Qaddafi?), the methodology to achieve it (are we in a no-fly-zone or are we bombing ground targets essential to save the rebels?), and the desired outcome (who are the “rebels,” what do we wish from them, and are they better than Qaddafi?). Indeed, after almost two weeks, these questions still have not been asked much less answered.

So the omissions pose the question: how did Obama, the archetype war critic, find himself bombing—in optional and preemptive fashion, and without congressional authority — an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country, and one that posed no immediate threat to American national security, despite being governed by a monster who, nevertheless, had been recently courted by Western intellectuals, academics, universities, and diplomats?

Unfortunately, Obama has no principled or strategically logical foreign policy. So it is mostly loud declarations that he is not George Bush and making things up ad hoc as he goes along. Here, I think, is what happened with Libya.

Heh™. Very Heh™

The Wilsonians Win

by Iron Fist ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at March 31st, 2011 - 8:25 am

Rodan will like this one:

The Wilsonians now have their war; they also now have their president. Barack Obama’s inner Woodrow Wilson has clearly won out; he has nailed his colors to the mast of a liberal international foreign policy. The cautious Jeffersonian realists have lost one policy battle after another in this administration. Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn law (“if you break it, you own it”) has been cast to the winds. A president who won his party’s nomination as the most consistent opponent of unpopular interventions abroad has become an apostle of liberal war. Not since Saul went to Damascus has there been such a dramatic conversion.

Liberal Wilsonians have a tough row to hoe in this wicked world. The kind of wars they support — humanitarian interventions blessed by the UN — are generally speaking deeply unpopular in the United States. Most non-Wilsonians (a substantial majority of the population) loathe the idea of American ground forces getting involved in these conflicts, and this political reality ties Wilsonians into knots.

Read the whole thing, for it is good. I generally agree with his assessment. There will be no Wilsonian peace here. If we “win”, an Islamist regime replaces Kadaffy. Where is the American victory there?

Well Now, That Didn’t Take Long, Did It?

by Flyovercountry ( 138 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Elections 2012, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Politics, Progressives at March 29th, 2011 - 8:30 am

In just a few short weeks, the Muslim Brotherhood have completely taken over that coup in Egypt. I remember having this very argument with someone on Facebook. Every leftist in the world argued that no, this time it was different. The magical Internet would prevent Egypt from turning into another thuggish theocracy. Hosni Mubarak was an evil dictator that the U.S. was wrong for supporting. It was this type of ruthless dictator that made us look bad in the eyes of the more civilized world at large.  It never occurred to those leftists, that like the Shaw of Iran, Mubarak was just as tough as he needed to be in order to prevent the constant threat of an Islamist takeover from being realized.  That losing Mubarak in Egypt, much like losing the Shaw in Iran would lead to a much more brutal and even more dangerous threat to the peaceful people of the world at large.  It’s not like this should be a surprise to anyone, as a lot of us predicted this inevitability right from the start.

I hear crickets from the left in this country.  They have moved onto their next great disaster to inflict upon the world, Libya.  (Libya, by the way is a direct result of the disaster in Egypt, as this revolution was actually ordered up by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Who we were all told by the Obama Administration were just a group of harmless social workers.)  This is one of the things which irks me the most about the left, never is responsibility accepted for the catastrophe caused by their reckless policies.  How do we go back in time to undo the election of President Obama so that the world would be a safer place than it is today.  We as a nation are still dealing with the mess created by both the Carter and Clinton Presidencies.  Carter gave us Iran and Afghanistan.  Clinton gave us Bosnia, Sudan, and Somalia.  Projecting American weakness around the world has consequences. 

Now that Libya is on the table, and it is the exact wrong thing for us to be involving ourselves in it, we are limping in, weak handed, and already deflecting responsibility to others.  Replacing a cowed evil dictator for even more crazed evil thugs will not serve our interests in the slightest.  Don’t get me wrong here, I am all for fighting the inevitable fight against militant Islam.  This is going to occur at some point during our future, and when we finally take it on, we had better win.  This fight in Libya however, is strengthening the enemy of that future battle.  President Obama is either an enemy of the United States, or the single most incompetent person on the face of the planet.  It does not matter to me which is true, he simply has to go.

Elections have consequences, and we are now reaping the consequences of November 2008.  For those of my fellow conservatives who sat out the last one because you couldn’t find it within yourselves to pull the lever for McCain, I sympathize, but you were dead wrong.  Even if the McCain clone Romney wins the nomination in 2012, please reconsider.

Crossposted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Assad different than Qaddafi Hillary Says

by Phantom Ace ( 22 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at March 27th, 2011 - 2:21 pm

Bashar Assad has been cracking down on anti-regime protests in Syria. So far no condemnation from the “International Community”. Although the protesters are Muslim Brotherhood led, should not the same standard that applies to Libya apply to Syria? Not according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. won’t enter into the internal conflict in Syria the way it has in Libya.

“No,” Clinton said, when asked on the CBS “Face the Nation” program if the U.S. would intervene in Syria’s unrest. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday after his promises of freedoms and pay increases failed to prevent dissent from spreading across the country.

[…]

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” Clinton said, referring to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s attacks on the Libyan people, “than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

Read the rest: U.S. Won’t Intervene in Syria as Assad Differs From Qaddafi, Clinton Says

The real difference between Assad and Qaddafi is obvious. Col. Mumar Qaddafi gave up his WMD’s, paid money to the Lockerbie bombing victims and was assisting the US against AL-Qaeda. Bashar Assad is allied with Iran, enabled AL-Qaeda to kill Americans in Syria, is assisting the oppression of Maronite Christians in Lebanon, is friends with John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and is admired by the 3rd World Liberation Movement. In short, Syria has the right friends, Qaddafi didn’t. That’s the difference between the 2 situations.

Update: Another reason Syria is different is because it’s an enemy of Israel.