I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler