E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLiberal blogger Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic said he wants President Obama to address the cost to the United States of the Libya offensive in his 7:30 pm address to the nation tonight.
A president addressing the nation on a war should be quite explicit on how it will be funded, under a range of scenarios. Some reports this time around suggest that the Saudis may pay the bill. Fine, but tell us. And each year of the costs needed for Afghanistan and Iraq should come out of some other part of the defense budget or require cuts in domestic spending elsewhere. Of course, none of this would be necessary if the Congress just did its job - and demanded fiscal responsibility from the increasingly trigger-happy executive branch.
On the right, Victor Davis Hanson at NRO asserted that the United States has two options: take Mummar Khaddafy out immediately or patrol the skies of Libya endlessly, eventually earning the resentment of the rebels and enabling Khaddafy to overpower them. He also laid out some other assumptions about ground and air intervention that he said have been established in previous engagements in the Middle East. Regardless of what the president says tonight, Hanson wrote that he should be working to remove Khaddafy from power.
● Those we are seeking to help are usually the weaker of the two parties, and may at some point make deals with our enemies by deprecating the hand that feeds them.
● With the exception of Britain, any allies, European or Arab, will not stay to the end, and reappear only when it is in their interests, either in the financial or political sense.
● We can take whatever level of public support there was in the beginning and after three months halve it; the most prominent politicians and pundits who championed the intervention will be the most likely, as support withers and the unexpected becomes the norm, to claim the intervention was a mistake, they were misled, or their brilliant original intervention was screwed up the administration’s disappointing (fill in the blanks).
● When it is all over, the president always takes a hit: Carter’s screwed-up rescue operation, Bush I with Kurds in the cold on the hills, Bush II with the Iraq insurgency, Clinton with American bodies dragged through Mogadishu, Reagan’s empty shelling after the Marine barracks, etc. Democratic presidents operate without much of an antiwar movement either in Congress or in the public, but their failures tend to confirm, fairly or not, inherent ill-at-ease with and incompetence in the use of force.
● Gas prices will either rise or be predicted to rise.
Given the above, and given the fact that this intervention was a bad idea, poorly articulated and not thought out from the very beginning, the best denouement is to get Qaddafi and get him quickly. Let us hope that, whatever the president says, he has advisers who see what must be done.
Leave a Comment:
Who cares?
No matter WHAT he says, it will not soothe the Obama Haters, who's only mission in life is to bring him down & ther rest of the country along with him!
FR has got some MAJOR 'kink's in it this morning!
What's up folks?
It is messed up this am.
I'd love to see Obama acknowledge that this being fought to protect Europe's oil source.
You know, just another war for oil. And I could have sworn that libbies hate that kind of war. Oh well, live and learn, right Feisty?
Its a Vast Rightwing Conspiracy to shut First Read down. dont you know. I mean everything eles is the Rightwings fault.
Or could it be that MSNBC is so bad they can't even manage there own sites.. I think the latter
Who cares?
No matter WHAT he says, it will not soothe the Feisty-like Obama Rumpswabbers, whose only mission in life is to praise His every breath...
This is hardly an American war. OIL will always get our attention when conflicts threaten "Western" access to it.
Hey Feisty.. You mean like you guys tried to do with GWB? Oh... and how you are STILL trying to do with GWB?
HAHAHAAH!
Honey...
The recess bell has rung - time for you to get back to work!
Make sure you 'smile pretty & show them ALL 3 of your teeth' when you those greet those Wal-Mart shoppers now will ya ?
I would just add that the Lybian oil is not a big concern here. The bigger problem is that whatever happens in Lybia will impact the trajectories of other Arab nations and even Iran. That broader concern is where our strategic interests (oil) come in to play. If this plays out well then more Arab countries will enact the political reforms that their people demand. The big picture here is that over the long term these countries could establish strong democratic institutions that would bring a lasting stability to the region (where we get our oil).
Another thing to consider about this scenario is that democracy should slowly move these societies in a more socially liberal direction. For example women, as a voting block, can demand more rights, or minority religous goups can ban together to demand more religous freedom and tolerance.
One more thing I've thought about recently: If this campaign is highly successful and reform continues to spread through the Arab world, will the Iranian people be inspired to stand up to their government again? And will there be a credible threat of International military action if Iranian civilians are targeted in a clap down against unrest?
ha
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Make sure you 'smile pretty & show them ALL 3 of your teeth' when you those greet those Wal-Mart shoppers now will ya ?
At least thats 3 more then The nasty one has..
Typically pathetic response... I am not a Wal-Mart greeter and I would certainly NOT belittle anyone (Wal-Mart greeter or not) that chooses to work rather than to sit their fat arse on the couch all day like you!
You are such a pathetic POS! HONEY!
Sounds like SOB has a permanent case of PMS!
Easy there babe - no need to get your pantied in a bunch!
Come Feisty tell us all why you feel that Wal-Mart greeters are some how contemptable or the source of ridicule.
Are you better than a Wal-Mart employee Feisty? Really?
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Could it be that someone is hacking into the system to see just who has what and how many handles? Or, to see just who is the author of postings?
Paranoia self destroya................
No Paul,
I do happen to know who asked whom to hack this system and find out specific information. It should be interesting to see if the information is posted, and who is outed.
But I understand the search is for selected individuals.
Still working on your conspiracy theory there, huh, safecracker?
I LOVE the smell of desperation in th evening!
The paranoia does indeed run deep! Ya FREAK!!! LMFAO
I do happen to know who the Safecracker is Feisty, and yes, he may attempt to hack the system.
Conspiracy, I don't think so and if there is any paranoia it ususally comes from your mouth.
Given the above, and given the fact that this intervention was a bad idea, poorly articulated and not thought out from the very beginning...
What should President Obama say? Ask 100 people and you will get 100 different answers.
Was this man Hanson, whoever he is, involved in meetings at the White House; was he part of the conference calls? Did he have a role in any discussions?
Has he had any communications with any of the Nations involved in this operation in Libya? What does he know about what is going on on the ground in Libya?
President Obama has been busy - very busy - I don't think he needs this joke's advice about anything.
He may listen to leaders in France in Britain, etc. But Hanson?
Good grief.
The dictating never ends with the right. It just never ends. They still think they have all the answers.
Yes they do Pat! Too bad they always seem to be the wrong ones!
Hey Pat... we might ask the same about all the libbies that relentlessly criticized GWB during his decision to engage Iraq.
Hypocrites!
He didn't engage Iraq, he invaded and occupied Iraq, while giving the false impression to the ignorant masses via FOX NEWS that they had something to do with 9/11. Another lie by BUSH/CHENEY.
And if you are sick of bickering why did you sign up for a blog?
It's tough...
But...
President Obama should at least consider telling the truth.
I hope that course of action occurred to one of his advisors, anyway.
We'll see, won't we?
Greetings from Milano- where I will be for the next ten days or so. I was a little surprised to see no article on the speech last night- guess you guys took off early.
Anyway, the European reviews are in, and not good. CNN and Bloomberg, in particular, are having a field day.
Pat, by the way- in America, anybody can express an opinion- as the left does when a republican is president. You do know that, do you not? I am guessing you were never invited to staff meetings, etc., and yet expressed your opinion of what Bush was doing. It is your birthright.
Hanson's too.
I did not get to see the speech, but I am wondering if Obama answered the question being raised in every quarter- who, exactly, is funding these Libyan rebels? Where do their weapons come from- and how are they delivered?
Inquiring minds want to know- for some very good reasons.
News out of Vegas. The over/under for how many times Obama says "Let me be clear" is 5. The over/under on how many times Obama says "Let me be Clear" followed by a lie is at 3. Pointing with his thumb and finger tips pinched together has an over/under of 30. The over/under for interlocking his fingers and dropping them on the TelePrompter is at 15. The odds that we will not know any more after the speech than before ithe speech is 10 to 1. The odds of one of the 4 Arab planes participating in the no fly zone dropping a bomb on Libya is ZERO. The odds of Liberals giving Obama credit for Sarkosy's leadership on Libya is 100%. Obama bringing new meaning to the term March Madness!!! Historic
You said teleprompter....................
News out of Vegas: The odds for how many times we read the word TELEPROMPTER tomorrow are: 100:1
At least we have gotten The Nasty one to stop Using LOL OR LMAO after each of its posts.
Soldiers use guns, pilots fly airplanes, chefs wield spatulas; Presidents use teleprompters. It's so they don't have to keep looking down at a piece of paper in front of them. It's something called technology.
Go with the "over" bet on every one. It's free money knowing Barry.
Feisty obviously knows nothing about betting or making odds... (like many other things she knows nothing about...)
"The odds for how many times we read the word TELEPROMPTER are 100:1" What the hell does that mean? If you would have given a number of times we would read it your 100:1 odds would make sense... but what you wrote is (like so many other things you've written here) just a bit off...
BTW.. you might try googling "Over Under". HA!
"Feisty obviously knows nothing about betting or making odds... (like many other things she knows nothing about...)"
_________________________________________________
Now you've gone and done it. The Nasty Redhead is going to call you names and then threaten to put you on "ignore author".
Amy B.
Believe it or not, there are even photographs of Saint Ronnie of Reagan using a teleprompter. And here I had always thought God just transmitted words directly into his brain, just like he does with Michele Bachmann.
Due to heaving betting on the "over", the over/under wager for Obama saying "let me be clear" followed by a lie has been increased to 5.
Every President and every politician in modern times has used the teleprompter. For the Republican Tea Baggers to latch on to this like President Obama is the only one using one shows just how low these baggers will go for any material to use against the President.
The President will stay on task and keep his message informative. The President will speak clearly to the audience and he will be sure of the facts presented. Mention all benchmarks, objectives, and goals that our nation must attain. The President will be careful on how he picks his words, and instructive in his language usage. The President will keep his focus on the mission at hand, and make it clear about the issues of genocide, coalitions, humanitarianism, and the needed end to all dictators. Ignore the continued rantings of the "Gross Odd People" (GOP), and the "Really Not Competent" (RNC). Unless they are able to speak clearly and positively on their own positions and yours. Just ignore it as the Party of No just spewing. Again! The President is confident and insightful enough to speak clearly to the American People. Now the "Political Punks" of the GOP and " Tippy Tea Beggers" will be ready to swoop down like vultures from the political skies. These very behaviorally disturbed individuals will try but fail to trick the President and distract him from his message. The response from the Tea Beggers and the GOP will be negative, and full of bitter remarks. The "Nazi News Network" will be on the attack even before the speech, and "Nutty Newt" will be front and center. The President will be on message, on task, and to the disappointment of the Tea Beggers the President will not need a teleprompter. On the radio the Tea Beggers have their mentally ill little friend "Lunatic Limbaugh" spewing moronically in his mic. Again! Have a good speech Mr. President, and maybe the GOP will actually pay attention for a change.
I was with you, Progressive, all the way to the last sentence---"maybe the GOP will actually pay attention for a change"----why should this speech be any different? They have already written their critisicms and rebuttals to save time.
With you all the way Steeler Fan. They could all probably give their finished rebuttals as we speak. Not a one will find anything to say that might be considered positive or that favors Obama's stance in any way. I'm sure Rush and his fellow knuckledraggers are already having a ball with this one. That box of rocks at fuxnews is probably already drooling.
I watched Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates give a nuanced and detailed explanation of our action in Libya on Sunday's Meet The Press, and, still, it's "not enough" in the eyes of the pundits. They want assurances that everything will work out OK, with an exact date and time and an end-game scenario, or else they feel insecure.
I guess, after our experience with the Bush administration and itsendless wars, and their ever changing rationals (we must kill terrorists over there instead of over here, Saddam had WMD, we are encouraging democracy in the Middle East...) the pundits are over reacting to the Obama administrations actions.
If I had the energy I'd google Mr. Davis Hanson's "precient" remarks when Bush invaded Iraq. What do suppose his batting average is on predicting the results of military actions?
"The President will stay on task and keep his message informative."
Not if he follows your example and blathers on with empty platitudes...
I agree, The President as always will deliver. He is the best in getting his message to the public.
What message would that be? I acted too late? I messed up? I don't want to take charge? Me Lead, 1,2,3 not it!!
I made the correct decision and all Republicans-Tea Baggers can kiss my butt.
Victor Davis Hanson is a typical armchair Republican warrior - I wonder what branch of the military he served in? I'd say he's a typical Republican he had "better things to do" when his country called.
One thing we do not lack in this country is a surfeit of pundits. And none of them has much experience in any field to warrant paying attention to them.
do you count yourself in that group?
It amazes me, Amy, that people believe the pundits--both conservative and liberal--as if they have some secret insider information.
"Democratic presidents operate without much of an antiwar movement either in Congress or in the public, but their failures tend to confirm, fairly or not, inherent ill-at-ease with and incompetence in the use of force."
The above statement doesn't jibe with recent history:
President Clinton, in conjunction with NATO, removed the dictator Slobodan Milošević and ended the Serbian genocide, without losing American lives or bankrupting the country.
Clinton left office with an approval rating above 60%, even though Republicans tried to spin his military action as a ploy to distract the public from his extramarital affairs. (Why can't Republicans ever make arguments based on facts instead of smears, misinformation and bogus claims?)
Amy, The comment does jibe with recent history. Clinton promised there would be no boots on the ground in Serbia. Success was not achieved until we did put boots on the ground. That is where the criticism came from. Not the success of the mission.
Strange Amy, I looked up Victor Davis Hanson and he's a registered member of the Democratic Party, so there's one thing you're wrong about, oh there's more. Second, We lost some Americans in Bosnia and Kosovo, again you're wrong, that's two. His extramarital in my opinion is not a big deal, but to lie about and get caught in a lie is pretty shallow to anybodies standards.
Funny you praise Clinton for removing Milosevic and you praise Obama on trying to remove Gadahafi, but you cry "war crimes" for removing Saddam who killed more of his own people than those two put together and don't forget Afghanistan where those animals killed 3000+ of our own people.
It's like the worst episode of "Glee" ever...one side singing "My Guy" while the other sings "You're No Good", both way too loud and off-key...
Strange Amy, I looked up Victor Davis Hanson and he's a registered member of the Democratic Party, so there's one thing you're wrong about, oh there's more.
A few things you forgot to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson
Some Democrat he is. He was also a cheerleader for Bush's Iraq disaster. Some "expert" he is.
There was one combat death in Bosnia and one in Kosovo. There were 3,510 in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
The more than 100,000 Iraqis were killed in Bush's Iraq war.
dangerfield
You can always count on Dangerfield to jump in to trivialize any serious issue so that he can put on his holier-than-thou act.
3WolvesandaMoon
The low down on Victor Davis Hanson; As Houston put it - Some Democrat:
Kinda like bag boy - must run in the family! lol
But totally unlike Feisty, who only chimes in with well thought out, and highly insightful words and comments.
Psst Feisty we got us another black kettle, and it's you old gal.
Houston,
I didn't forget to add anything. He's a registered Democrat, Amy said he was a Republican-Fact? Let me check on what Amy said-yup, she said it.
What part of "no one was kia" didn't you understand? Two is more than zero, wouldn't you agree or are you trying to defend a Liberal that can't get her facts correct?
Geez, 100,000 civilians, boy that's a tough one, can't argue some got killed, this is true, but the ones I seen trying to kill my ass didn't wear uniforms and had no problem shooting at me, but hey, I'm typing to a fool that loves them and they, the ones trying to kill my ass, getting it on with some virgins and talking it up with ALLAH.
You were in their country , under false pretenses. If someone came to America doing the same thing you would defend our right to shoot at them. Hypocritical much?
3WolvesandaMoon
I'd give up if I were you.
Bill Clinton was savaged by Republicans for going into Serbia to stop the genocide. Now they'd like to erase the fact he removed the dictator in a true coalition with other countries, and without damaging our military and draining the bank. There is no comparison to Bush's bungling. That is what is at issue now. This Victor Davis Hanson supported Rumsfeld and the Bush administration and now he criticizes President Obama's administration? I'm pointing out he has no credibilty for doing so.
Really Paul?? I'm in their country right now, come over here and get me out. If some illegal came to my country and killed somebody, I couldn't kill them because Eric Holder says I can't and your President wants to give them a "Dream Act"!! Kind of like that?
Or would you relate dropping bombs in Libya different? By the way, drop away Obama, I don't care.
I would protect you Paul since you're a coward, yes I do protect cowards, even people like you. You probably never defended anything in your life.
OK Amy, again with the facts, how many times do I have to correct you? We didn't go into Serbia, we went into Bosnia. I'm afraid to ask you this because you will make something up, but why did Clinton change the name of the Operations every year? Want to give it a try? Humor me with you vast knowledge of military history.
3 JackassesandaLunatic: Your "service" in Iraq isn't protecting me from anything. Spread that brainwash amongst the ranks, it doesn't fly with informed civilians. Spare me.
Progressive-you took the words out of my mouth (I wish I could say it as well)
He should say exaclty what HillarCclinton said on Meet the Press yesterday in a tour de force agruement. We have allies around the world who are helpingus infar away places. And now theysee a danger 300 miles away of potential gensocide. theyasked our help. Theyhelp us inafgaistan-when america was attacked.They camet our aid, So yes like it or not we owe them.
What would happen if Gaddiffi carried out his treat of no mercy? What would the US position lok like with ananther Rawanda? What would our crediblitybe then in Tunia, Syria,Yemen, Egypt? They would say you talk bing and never deliver.
When I say Gaddif must go I mean this not inthe context of choosing a leader. I mean it in the contextof people having basic right in the world, which we through the UNCharter have pledge to uphold. And it is American too
"When any form of goverment becomes oppressive the people have the right to alter or abolish it" This is from the Declaration of independence. It is inthe very DNA of america.
We have been toTripoli before. It is inthe Marines song. It recall another time -the first time America liberate people fromt he slaveryof pirates-and it was our Marines who did it. That battle was thef irst part of our heritage. It is only fitting to return to our roots, recall a our heritage, and reaffirm our role of helping liberation.
France and Britia are absolutely right. Slaughtering thousands aof people is a worng we cannot afford. The moral cost is always higher than any money cost.It eats ot the conscince and says you value moeny more than anything else.It says your God is your belly and your glory is your shme.
We can always handle a temporary defict .we cannot handle permanant shame of fututre genration who'd cry out..why didn't you act.
The "Gross Odd People" (GOP), and the "Really Not Competent" (RNC) have not given our President a chance to succeed since the first day President Obama took office. Just like the President's speech tonight. The GOP will already have their political ropes in hand and the poison of their viper like fangs out to strike. The "Nazis News Network." AKA. Fox News. Has its many messages of madness ready to present at anytime to politically try to destroy our President. The Political Punks of the GOP are ready to go, and rotten smell of old tea bags streaks through the "Nazis News Room" floor of hate. The GOP vultures fly over the Nazis (Fox) news room picking the political flesh off the bones of the disabled, elderly, and the working middle class. Have a great speech Mr. President, and remember to be on guard for political GOP vipers.
I posted this on page 2 of the First Thoughts thread this morning, but since the usual suspects are trying to peddle the false equivalency of Iraq and Libya yet again in this thread, it bears repeating:
Most of the TV talking heads have taken to referring to the Libya intervention as a "war." Calling it "war" when a humanitarian military intervention is undertaken and bombs get dropped and soldiers get killed is not unreasonable, as long as you're consistent in what you call a war. But the corporate media's definition of "war" seems to have suddenly changed.
One blogger noted that between Gulf War I and Gulf War II, a No-Fly Zone was imposed in Iraq. Bombs got dropped and people got killed for 13 years between the two wars. So what do you call what was going on in Iraq between Gulf War I and Gulf War II? Was it Gulf War One-and-a-Half? No. Nobody considered that a war. Operations that enforce No-Fly zones didn't become wars until Barack Obama decided to intervene in Libya.
Why did they change the definition? The only reason I can see is to facilitate lame comparisons between Obama's intervention in Libya and Bush's fiasco in Iraq. As one of the resident First Read far right whackadoodles phrased this line of attack last week: "Bush = Obama and Obama = Bush." Of course, there are many differences between Libya and Iraq. The biggest difference of all is that Obama acted to avert a man-made humanitarian disaster in which tens of thousands of civilians could have died, while Bush created a man-made disaster in Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of civilians DID die.
Thanks for the re-post Houston!
The message was lost over on First Thoughts and the cess-pool it rapidly deteriorated to!
Houston,
How many people did Saddam kill?
"Why did they change the definition?"
The term "war" is RACIST, that's it! Poor Mr Obama, dropping bombs and such, shouldn't have to hear such nonsense...
Independent estimates are that he killed approximately 600,000 of his own people. Independent estimates are that Bush added another 700,000 to the death toll with his invasion of Iraq.
Bob:
If that's your opinion, that's fine. Mine is that the term is used to facilitate the lame comparisons between Obama's action in Libya to Bush's Iraq fiasco. I could have SWORN I just said that. You seem not to have noticed.
Houston I agree with you - Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters.
So why won't Obama pull the plug on them. And why did he go off and start another? $100 million per day Houston. And worse he increased the troop levels and perpetuates the war(s).
This guy appears to be a real war hawk.
You are good with that?
No. I'm not, at least with Afghanistan. Most of the combat has ended in Iraq, but Afghanistan looks hopeless. Things might have turned out differently if Bush had not decided to start a new war in Iraq after he let Bin Laden escape.
Houston,
700,000 people we killed!!!!! Dude, what time is it there in Houstonland? Post the "source" or are you making up the numbers because you want Bush to have more? Is that it Houston? 700,000??? That's a whole lot of killing and with the media riding on our ass they sure would had reported that. Can you see it, MSNBC, 5000 civilians died today at the hands of the American military. Is that how you think Houston?
Whiskey-Pete was used on Fallujah. Are you going to try to deny that as well? Do you think it is Patriotic to lie? WhitePhosphorus is a WMD, and we used it on civilians no less..
3WolvesandaMoon
Don't they have Google in Moronland where you live?
Here's the link:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17441-2
Even the Pentagon's low-ball estimate was 100,000 civilian casualties.
That's funny Houston...
The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones.
You FAILED to refute the point he was making. A NO-FLY Zone was at minimum a continuation of the undeclared war in Iraq.
JFK-2112
And the no-fly zone in Libya was proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France (and the UN Security Council). So?????
JFK,
Houston doesn't understand what you wrote. But you're right, there's a difference between the two.
Tell us how they are different. Don't just claim that they are.
3WolvesandaMoon
I understand that JFK just repeated why the "non-war" no-fly zones in Iraq were exactly the same as the no-fly zone in Libya, except for the fact that they were in different countries. Oh, and then there's the fact that the Iraqi no-fly zone was started by a Republican president and the one in Libya was started by a Democratic president. That's the only difference that's important to you, right?
Houston,
I try to break it down to Houston level. There was two fly zones. One in the North and on in the South. The Baghdad area didn't have a fly zone. Saddam could fly anywhere he wanted as long as it wasn't above those lines. I don't care who started what fly zone, you seem to worry about it like it's a freaking game. Bomb away Obama, I really don't care about the fly zone in Libya like you do. Quote me anywhere on here that I oppose or approve of this not thought out joke of a fly zone.
Follow along Paul-the fly zone in Iraq keep planes from attacking, the Libya no fly zone is used to bomb the hell out of military targets not just enforce aircraft from Libya's air force. Now you know the difference.
"the fly-zone" ? We're discussing the NO-FLY ZONES.
3WolvesandaMoon
If you don't know that US planes were bombing the h-e-double-toothpicks out of military targets inside Iraq for over a decade, then you're as ignorant as you are stupid. In fact, the no-fly zone in the north is what permitted the Kurds to essentially form their own government and military independent of Saddam, similar to the way the intervention in Libya has saved the anti-Gaddafi movement in Libya from imminent extermination.
So, still no rational explanation, I see, as to a no-fly zone initiated by a Republican president is not a war but one initiated by a Democrat is a war. Just a lot of anti-Obama bile and venom.
In what parallel universe is Andrew Sullivan considered a liberal?
He's worse than Howard Fineman.
Why do rightwingrs lie about simply everything?
Below are quotes from Republicans during the Bosnia war, in opposition to Bill Clinton:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
"I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles."
-Senator Inhofe (R-OK )
"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)
"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
"The two powersight, Victor Davis Hanson at NRO
Because they are paid to be RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-ans.
Kind of like you can't get you facts straight Amy. Nice copy and paste
What surprise me is that Obama and Biden are doing the very same thing Bush did and they champaign on not doing what their doing!!! How does that feel? Cant spin it that, by the way, why isn't Gitmo closed? As it been a year yet?
Paul, And libs are paid to be DEM-oc-Rats -that- LIE-ber-ALL the time. Cool huh?
The REPUBLICAN minority in the Senate wouldn't allow funding for the transfer of detainees.
Houston keep going, you missed the most important part... "the US, UK, and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south."
Lawrence O Donnell has it right - All-encompassing doctrines no longer apply in an evermore chaotic world. The best we can do is to take each situation as it lays and do things in line with our own sense of the world "when we can."
We could help in Egypt. We can help in Libya. We may not be able to help in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia (due to existing alliances, loyalties and security interests). Nor Iran or Syria (too big/people not ready).
I also agree with O Donnell that the parsing by the media and the President's opponents of Gate's comment that "Libya involvement is not in our national interest" is pure nit-picking politics - Omitted was Gates' follow up comment that involvement in the region is a vital national interest and Hillary Clinton drove home the final nail by pointing out that often something not vital to our own national interest may be vital to the interests of our allies, and that our standing and credibility internationally may depend on whether or not we stand strongly with our friends. (& vice versa).
Finally, the seeming contradiction between the NATO's limited mission of (a) "clearing the skies" and "protecting civilian populations from massacres" and (b) wanting Quaddafi to go" is no different than you or I wanting an I-Phone, but the laws prohibiting us from grabbing it off the shelf without paying for it. (There are laws, rules, guidelines and limits that we must abide by). But that doesn't mean we can't yearn for an I-Phone (& hope privately that Aunt Bessie won't buy us one for our birthday).
I hope President Obama improves upon the above logic and metaphors and makes what I believe to be a strong case before the American people (& the world) in words they can understand and feel.
Jeff, Holmdel NJ
You gave a clear and concise summary of the situation. It's not that hard to understand what's going on, but the jobs of GOP politicians and media pundits depend on them pretending to NOT understanding it.
On one of the Sunday morning shows, someone commented that, Newts position is. Whatever Obama is for, he is against. I think that kind of thinking applies to many conservatives, including some pundits
x