Obama's Libya Strategy Proves His Critics Wrong
[Note: This article has been corrected since it first ran. See below.]
President Obama, when he first announced the United States' intervention in the Libyan revolution, was assailed from all sides for his war plan. Five months ago, both Democrats and Republicans were offering up pointed criticisms for just about every aspect of Obama's decision. Whatever Obama did, there were large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats quite willing to loudly second-guess him. Including Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), who called President Obama's actions "an impeachable offense."
These criticisms were often contradictory (coming from the same people, at times), and were scathing and absolutely relentless: Obama had waited too long, Obama had moved too quickly, Obama should have gotten Congress' approval, Obama shouldn't have gotten the U.N.'s approval, America should just invade in a land war, America should just drop a bomb on Ghaddafi and be done with it, the rebels were in reality Al Qaeda, why are we intervening in Libya and not elsewhere in the Arab Spring, America can't afford another war, air power alone never wins wars, America will be forced to put "boots on the ground" whether we like it or not, America should be leading the war, Obama is "leading from behind," we're letting the French take control (?!?), Obama is kowtowing to the Arab League, another war in a Muslim country will just serve to inflame the region, what about the War Powers Act, we're going to wind up occupying Libya no matter what happens, the "ragtag" rebels will never win, the best the rebels can hope for will be a stalemate, Libya will end up partitioned with Ghaddafi holding on to the west of the country, Ghaddafi will unleash international terrorists against us, Obama didn't come home from South America when it began, Obama is "dithering," Obama didn't explain to the American public what was going on, and (an old favorite) America will end up in a quagmire. Back at the beginning of the war, Salon ran an amusing flowchart to track the Republican complaints, which isn't all that far from the reality Obama faced at the time (although the chart is admittedly partisan, because it doesn't address the criticism directed towards the president from his own party).
When Obama first announced his decision to join with N.A.T.O. to intervene in Libya, I wrote an article titled "Obama's Libyan Gamble" which explored what the American military strategy for Libya was going to be. This gamble has now proved successful for the president. At the time, I concluded:
If it works out reasonably well, this could become a model for American involvement in future flareups. If a ruthless tyrant was massacring his own people, then regional military coalitions would be free to call for American action. America, as everyone knows, is very, very good at executing the initial phases of a war. Iraq proved that. But America, also as everyone should have figured out, is also not that good at getting out of such wars. Iraq -- once again -- proves this, too. But if our new model is to limit our major involvement to the opening phases of war, then the responsibility for solving these regional problems would fall to regional organizations with much bigger vested interests in the outcome than the United States.
Of course, this isn't a perfect answer because sometimes regional alliances strong enough to bear this responsibility simply don't exist. Obama's Libyan strategy has yet to play out, and it's impossible at this juncture to see what will happen next. Obama's gamble that America can join in the initial phase of a war and then extricate itself quickly is one of those ideas which sound really good on paper, before reality sinks in when they're actually attempted. Other presidents have had equally cheerful predictions about the length of American military involvement, which later proved to be embarrassingly shortsighted. But, I have to admit, that if the gamble pays off -- if America can prove to the rest of the world that it can lead when asked, but also relinquish control when we're no longer needed -- it could bear fruit in future conflicts of this nature. If it works, people might start speaking of Obama's gamble as the Obama Doctrine.
Looking back, I have to admit that I overstated the case. Barack Obama is anything but "doctrinaire," on pretty much any subject. The Libyan intervention was tailored to a unique situation that may indeed never arise again. The set of circumstances in Libya was (and is) different than in other hotspots in the world right now (such as Syria), making it unlikely that Obama will use the Libyan battle plan again any time soon. So calling it the "Obama Doctrine" was a bit of a stretch, I suppose.
But it cannot be denied that the positive outcome in Libya has validated the way Obama sent America into this conflict. Sure, in the future, the whole Libyan Revolution could become sidetracked in any number of ways -- just because they've taken Tripoli (and even if they soon capture Ghaddafi), it doesn't mean that they're going to successfully make the transition to a modern democratic state. There simply are no guarantees of this type in the real world. But that doesn't preclude us from examining the military strategy in its own light, especially when held up against our interventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the news from Tripoli is so uplifting right now, in other words, it is hard to step back and examine the bigger picture of what America's efforts in Libya may mean for our future involvement in other wars of this nature which may flare up. But it's worth the exercise.
By just about any measure, America's involvement in Libya has been less burdensome to the United States than the last two wars we've fought. For example, six months into Iraq (the same time period that Libya took), 289 American troops had been killed (according to icasualties.org). In addition, 53 coalition troops had died. Six months after N.A.T.O. began air raids on Libya, a total of zero American troops have died, and an additional zero coalition troops have died. Hundreds of American servicemen and servicewomen are still alive today, because we did not launch a land invasion of Libya.
It was pointed out just after we began attacking Libya -- with alarm -- that American involvement might cost upwards of one billion dollars. I haven't seen any strict accounting of the war yet, but assuming the estimate was true, it absolutely pales in comparison to the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars (upwards of over a trillion dollars by most estimates) we have so far spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is several orders of magnitude of difference, right there.
Our military involvement in Libya was requested by the rebels. This is an important fact which many gloss over. We were not invited in to Afghanistan or Iraq, by any group. Even more important, we never actually "went in" to Libya (at least as the phrase refers to troops on the ground), so we don't have to now "get out" of the country. Ten years on, we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called "Pottery Barn" rule ("you broke it, you own it") simply did not apply in Libya, meaning America is not left holding the bag when it comes to the nation-building phase. We can help out, if needed and requested, but the Libyans will be financing their own reconstruction with their abundant petrodollars.
Our international coalition on Libya actually shared the burden with America, as planned. The coalition bore the costs and responsibility for a large part of the mission, instead of mostly being window-dressing for an American army. In fact, this could be the most important comparison of them all, when we look back at the lessons of Libya. Maybe we don't always have to shoulder almost the entire burden of these sorts of wars, in the future. Maybe the "Obama Strategy" will actually become an important military tool for future presidents to use on the international stage, when circumstances allow.
Today, President Obama gave a short address on the Libyan situation. At the end, he spoke directly to the Libyan people themselves:
Your courage and character have been unbreakable in the face of a tyrant. An ocean divides us, but we are joined in the basic human longing for freedom, for justice and for dignity. Your revolution is your own, and your sacrifices have been extraordinary. Now, the Libya that you deserve is within your reach.
The most important takeaway line from this was: "Your revolution is your own." This simply could not be said of what we did in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
The American involvement in Libya was not perfect, but then no war effort can truly claim that distinction. The outcome may not be perfect, either. There are still plenty of valid points of criticism to be made. President Obama's critics will doubtlessly bring up the situation in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain to make the point that the Obama's Libya strategy is not being used elsewhere, or even that it cannot successfully be used elsewhere. Calling it the "Obama Doctrine" is likely a step too far, I fully admit. It is true that Obama pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Act further than any previous president, but virtually all presidents (of both parties) have pushed these boundaries ever since the Act was passed (and until either Congress or an Oval Office occupant pushes it to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of the Act itself will have to remain an open question). Obama may have moved too slowly for some at the war's onset, but he also moved too quickly for others. Finally, there are no guarantees that the rebels will form a new Libyan government to America's liking.
Even with all those caveats, however, Obama deserves a victory lap at this point. At the heart of Obama's war plan for Libya was an enormous gamble that could have failed in any number of ways. It didn't. America successfully cleared the skies of Libya, and then "within days, not weeks" we bowed out of the lead role in the fight. The French, the British, and the rest of N.A.T.O. stepped up to the plate and performed admirably well. The American military continued in a support role -- exactly as Obama told us would happen -- and the outcome, at this point in time, has to be judged a clear success.
Plus, Barack Obama is now -- together with the leaders of France, Britain, and the United Nations -- being hailed as liberators of Libya (to use the Bush administration's phrase). All in all, Obama's gamble seems to be paying off exceedingly well. Whether this helps the president or not politically (here at home), the Libyan rebels seem pretty happy with the way the war was fought, and with the way America fought our part of it. And it needs pointing out -- to all of Obama's critics -- that this may be the truest measure of success possible. How long has it been, after all, since America took part in a war where at the end of it throngs of people crowded around a sign thanking us for our efforts?
[CORRECTION: This article has been corrected. Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich did not, in fact, call for President Obama to be impeached, he merely pointed out that Obama's actions were "an impeachable offense." We regret the mischaracterization.]
[Program Note: It wasn't germane to the theme of this article, but Matt Osborne over at OsborneInk.com has the best overall wrapup of the war (complete with well-detailed maps) from a technical and sociological point of view that I've yet seen. I recommend it for anyone interested in an in-depth look at what the Libyan war was about, and what it all means.]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris, if it can be said that a "doctrine" has emerged, it probably goes something like: use power at a remove, and only when local forces are determined to fight their own battles.
Also: Juan Cole has a great post up today on the geopolitics of the conflict.
Osborne -
Thanks, I will check it out. I've learned to pay close attention to what you say (and the links you forward) on Libya!
Everyone else -
Go read Matt's article, it is definitely worth your time!
-CW
To borrow a term from the architects, I've been in the midst of a charette, and have been ignoring a lot of important things, not the least of which is this blog. That said, I also say:
First, OT. At the time, I wrote in a post to the effect that S&P was going to pay for telling the truth. Tonight, the S&P Board removed the CEO, who will be replaced by the CO[-perating]O[-fficer] Of Citibank. No better fox to guard the hen house, at least none who would accept the pay cut. Besides, loose cannons are far too dangerous when the ship is made of paper-mache.
Regarding Libya, if you conclude I need some tin foil for headgear, so be it. But two points. In an earlier post, I referenced a report on the Israeli debkafile website regarding US-NATO concurrence in giving the job to the Russians to get us out of this. Mention was there made of a role in the new government to be given to one the Col.'s sons.
Last Thursday the same site reported a meeting on an island off Tunisia, identifying by the helicopters used, as entailing representatives of the hostile parties, Italy, France and others. By Saturday, that article had been redacted from the site. Sunday, the stunning victory. Monday, Saif al Islam (a son), reported as arrested, showed up at the Rixos Hotel where many of the press are billeted in Tripoli, and took some on a junket. (This latter from Reuters, updated online minutes ago).
The fog of war is very thick in the desert. And it has been since February.
Back soon.
Missed the closing italics tag after "Reuter's".
Anybody want to guess where Ghaddafi's hiding?
My two favorite guesses are:
On the top floor of the hotel that all the international journalists are trapped in (guaranteeing that he wouldn't be bombed by NATO).
In Sirte, far from Tripoli.
Anyone else want to venture a guess?
-CW
I, too, would guess out of Tripoli.
If one has never seen it, this would be a good time to watch the film The Wind and the Lion. Loosely based on an historical event, an adventure yarn and a love story is over-arched with a good deal of political commentary (and cartooning), and illustrates just how far the American treatment and understanding of North Africa has not come in a century.
I didn't hate it as much as ya thought, CW... :D
But the fact is, Obama got lucky in Libya...
And THAT is the biggest danger...
Because Obama and Democrats might be thinking, "Hay, this 'Lead From Behind' strategy is pretty frakin' great!. Let's use it in Syria! Hell, let's use it everywhere!!"...
It's funny..
The new government has written a new Constitution. That Constitution established an official language (Arabic), an official religion (Islam) and an official system of jurisprudence (Sharia)...
And ya'all are thinking what a GOOD thing this is??
Hell, Democrats go ape sheet when the US tries to establish English as the official language.. Yet they think it's just fine and dandy for a regime that will be hostile to the US to establish an Islamist government complete with Sharia law....
Weird... Very weird...
[Program Note: It wasn't germane to the theme of this article, but Matt Osborne over at OsborneInk.com has the best overall wrapup of the war (complete with well-detailed maps) from a technical and sociological point of view that I've yet seen. I recommend it for anyone interested in an in-depth look at what the Libyan war was about, and what it all means.]
Fortunately Matt hasn't banned me from READING his posts, just from pointing out when he is wrong... :D
I did read his commentary and I was very impressed. It was quite in depth and showed that Matt did a LOT of research.
His conclusions were a little too much on the rosy side, IMNSHO... He leaned more towards "best case scenario" too often with little evidence to support the claim, other than wishful thinking.
But, all in all, it was a damn fine article. The maps alone were highly impressive..
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the REAL battle for Libya will begin soon...
But with the evidence so far??? It's clear that Libya will follow the course of Egypt and Iran.. Another Islamist America Hating government..
I have to wonder if Obama will accept the responsibility for that?? As far as I recall, Carter never owned up to Iran...
Michale......
Anybody want to guess where Ghaddafi's hiding?
He was secretly transported to Iraq and is dug in at Saddam's Spider Hole.. :D
Michale.....
"Obama got lucky in Libya"
That's a whole parade of horse-puckey right there, Chris. War always involves a certain luck factor, but good planners don't depend on luck.
"It's clear that Libya will follow the course of Egypt and Iran.. Another Islamist America Hating government.."
No proof, just Islamophobia. What was that about "best-case scenarios"? Because it wounds like someone is dreaming of a worst-case scenario.
"wounds"? Sounds. But maybe it's Freudian.
Matt,
That's a whole parade of horse-puckey right there, Chris. War always involves a certain luck factor, but good planners don't depend on luck.
Still kissing Obama's backside, I see, eh?? :D
Do you honestly and truly believe that Obama "planned" this???
Seriously???
Based on what???
Wishful thinking??
If Obama is so good at planning, why is unemployment so high?? Why is the economy still in the toilet??
What are you saying?? Obama "planned" that as well???
There is absolutely NO evidence to support your wish that Obama "planned" this and there are mountains of evidence to support that Obama simply got lucky..
Besides, you act as if Libya is a done deal. If you are the military person you claim to be, you would know that the most dangerous part of any warfare action is the time when victory is closest at hand...
No proof, just Islamophobia.
You DID read the new Libya Constitution, right??
Islam is the official religion. Sharia is the official Law...
Sounds like Iran to me...
Where's your proof that Libya is NOT likely to go the way of Iran??
Michale.....
Because it sounds like someone is dreaming of a worst-case scenario.
As a military man, worst-case scenarios are upper-most in my mind, yes.
As they should be in the Commander In Chief's mind as well...
Apparently, Obama is disregarding this sound military policy in favor of blowing more smoke up the American people's arse...
Michale......
Something just occurred to me..
Shouldn't ya'all be congratulating NATO and not Obama???
After all, it was NEVER "US Forces" in play, it was always "NATO Forces"...
NOW that victory is close, ya'all want to switch back and make it all about Obama???
One must wonder who you would have blamed if it had all gone south...
Actually, I don't have to wonder.. I know for a fact ya'all would have blamed NATO and praised Obama... :^/
Such is the nature of political demagoguery... It's a fickle mistress....
Michale.....
NOTE: That last comment should have been posted to Matt's blog, as it pertains mostly to his mindset..
Michale.....
Well, one good thing to come out of Obama's Libya war...
Regime Change is now official US policy...
It's hilarious that it took a Democrat to sell the policy.. :D
Michale.....
Michale-
Are you sure it's a lead from behind strategy and not a we're in two wars form the previous administration and the house will crucify me if I try to start a third so I will do what I can with as little money as possible strategy?
Bashi,
Are you sure it's a lead from behind strategy and not a we're in two wars form the previous administration and the house will crucify me if I try to start a third so I will do what I can with as little money as possible strategy?
Obama DID start a third..
Contrary to the "situational" thinking from the Left, if you think that NATO is anything BUT the US, I have a bridge in England I want to sell you.
Obama started a third war. Period
If that is unpalatable to you and the Left, then I suggest ya'all might want to rethink your support for an Obama 2nd term.
Because it's unlikely that this country would survive it.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked dsws...
What would Obama have to do (or not do) to lose your support of his presidency??
Considering that Obama has done much worse than Bush, with regards to principles ya'all CLAIM to hold near and dear, I think it's a fair question..
Michale.....
The initial phase of the intervention appears to be concluding successfully. We'll know in a few days. Quadaffi could still be holding some reserves somewhere that could be put in play.
What happens next should be up to the Libyan population, with a huge interest from countries most involved with Libya. The surrounding Arab countries,Italy and France (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/opinion/la-oe-weiner-europe-libya-20110324).
The US has no reason to interfere in the type of government put up by the Libyans. We cannot and should not, remake the world to fit our perception of reality.
I do not think this was a "gamble". A gamble implies a stake in the final result. The start of the bombing was to prevent mass casualties from Libyan air forces, not to change the government. It was a measured response to a specific problem. The only definition of failure would have been the mass murder of Libyan citizens by the Libyan air force. It didn't happen.
Obama DID start a third..
Funny, I thought it was a civil war that the west almost took too long to intervene in...
What would Obama have to do (or not do) to lose your support of his presidency??
Well, contrary to your assertions, I choose who I vote for president by policy. What they are likely to put forward and how they will vote on what comes before them. None of the republicans have a policy plan I like. So to answer your question, a white knight third party candidate would have to come along with both a good policy plan and the poll numbers to prove if I voted for them I would not be placing a de facto vote for the republican...
The US has no reason to interfere in the type of government put up by the Libyans. We cannot and should not, remake the world to fit our perception of reality.
Yea... That worked out SO well for us in Iran...
No reason to think things will be peachy keen wonderful in Libya, eh?? :D
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it..
The start of the bombing was to prevent mass casualties from Libyan air forces, not to change the government.
Sorry, DF.. But you have your facts wrong...
In an open letter issued printed simultaneously in the Washington Post, the Times of London and Le Figaro, the Obama administration, together with the heads of government in France and Great Britain, openly acknowledged that the purpose of the NATO bombing of Libya was regime change, i.e., the forcible expulsion of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/liby-a16.shtml
Michale.....
Funny, I thought it was a civil war that the west almost took too long to intervene in...
Yea, and Bush really didn't start the Iraq war either... :^/
Well, contrary to your assertions, I choose who I vote for president by policy. What they are likely to put forward and how they will vote on what comes before them. None of the republicans have a policy plan I like.
So, you support Obama? Even though he is more Bush than Bush in most principles you hold dear??
Well, more power to ya....
Michale.....
Yea... That worked out SO well for us in Iran...
Because Operation Ajax was so successful?
Because Operation Ajax was so successful?
So, two wrongs make a right??
Welcome to the Dark Side, Bashi :D
Michale......
So, two wrongs make a right??
No, but three lefts do... :D
"Four lefts is a circle, you idiot!!!"
-Nicholas Cage, TRAPPED IN PARADISE
:D
Michale......
Well, contrary to your assertions, I choose who I vote for president by policy.
You mean Obama's "policy" of closing Gitmo???
Ending domestic surveillance??
Ending Bush Tax Cuts??
Stopping rendition??
Ending Regime Change and meddling in other countries affairs??
Are these the "policies" you are referring to???
Let me put it another way..
Suppose I told you in the summer of 2006 that in the 2008 Election, you would vote for a president who continued Bush Tax Cuts, kept Gitmo operating, expanded Bush's Rendition and Domestic Surveillance programs and, with NATO, started a bombing campaign in another Mid East country....
You would have told me that I was nucking futz!!! You would have told me that you would never, never, EVER vote for a president that would just be a continuation of Bush..
And yet...... Here we are....
Michale.....
Hey Michale,
Have been on vacation w/o Internet access (man, was it great) so have missed out on the fun.
I think its pretty safe to say though that many people support Obama because he's the only game in town right now and, at the same time, are working to help convince him and/or others that they would actually do better if they were MORE progressive.
The only alternative conservatives have offered is more trickle down theory and deregulation. Sorry, but that's not doing it for me ...
Are we 100% happy with Obama? No. Does what conservative are offering look any better? No. It actually looks a lot worse.
On the flip side, if Obama is so much like Bush, why do you hate him so much?
1. He got bin Laden.
2. We haven't gotten into any more costly wars like Iraq/Afghanistan. Do you think Bush could have stayed out of Syria?
3. Dictators in both Egypt and Syria (knock on wood) have gone down.
-David
Crap. Correction- Libya.
Also, Chris and Matt- excellent articles on the country w/ an 'L'
david,
i'd say that even in the respects you mentioned, obama continued the bush policies, just somewhat more successfully. nonetheless, they were the same basic policies. don't even get me started on arne duncan and "race to the top..."
David,
Glad yer back! I missed ya!! :D
Are we 100% happy with Obama? No. Does what conservative are offering look any better? No. It actually looks a lot worse.
So, let me ask you this..
Would you support Obama being primary'ed by a better candidate??
Are you a Democrat/Progressive or are you an Obama-Bot???
1. He got bin Laden.
Only because of Bush and HIS policies..
Why do I hate Obama if he is so much like Bush??
Because Obama is a hypocrite...
If he WERE like Bush, if he stood up like a man and said, "Yea, I renditioned terrorists!! Yea, I ordered terrorists tortured!! Deal with it!!!" then you probably wouldn't hear a peep outta me..
But Obama is a two faced lying hypocrite..
He publicly castigates everything about the Bush policies, then turns around and reaps the adulation by USING the Bush policies...
Let me pose the same question to you that I posed to Bashi...
If I told you in the summer of 2006 that in the 2008 Election, you would vote for a president who continued Bush Tax Cuts, kept Gitmo operating, expanded Bush's Rendition and Domestic Surveillance programs and, with NATO, started a bombing campaign in another Mid East country....
What would your reaction have been??
When is it enough, David??
What does Obama have to do to lose your support???
Become a Republican???
Michale.....
Welp, there isn't any Libya Bump for Obama..
Approval down to 38%....
That's Carter Numbers....
Michale.....
Are you a Democrat/Progressive or are you an Obama-Bot??? :D
That should have been said with a smile... :D
Michale.....
So....
Who here got jolted around in the VA quake, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Would you support Obama being primary'ed by a better candidate?
Possibly. Its not a big secret that I'd like to see more progressive policies.
You, of course, want him to be primaried because you want to see him lose and you want a return to conservative rule.
nonetheless, they were the same basic policies.
@nypoet- I'd largely agree with that statement. If you look at what conservatives are doing in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states though, you get an example of what we'd be facing as a country as a whole if say a Romney or a Bachmann were in charge.
Possibly. Its not a big secret that I'd like to see more progressive policies.
But yet, you would still vote Obama, rewarding bad behavior and therefore guaranteeing continuation of the same....
Your leaders have NO INCENTIVE to change because they know progressives will vote party, regardless....
Obama et al have the progressives by the short and curlies and progressives give them absolutely NO incentive to change...
I'd largely agree with that statement. If you look at what conservatives are doing in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states though, you get an example of what we'd be facing as a country as a whole if say a Romney or a Bachmann were in charge.
How is that any worse than what the rest of the country is facing??
Did you know that, in some places, amongst certain ground, unemployment is as high as 50%!!??
You say that Obama is the best thing going..
I ask, how can anyone possibly be worse??
Michale......
Some funny tweets about the quake...
@comradescott: Evidently the quake occurred on a little known fault line outside of DC called "Bush's Fault". #tcot #p2
@calebhowe: Breaking: Obama administration points out they "inherited" fault lines from previous administrations.
@MaizeBlueNation: Fox News claims the Washington monument is leaning to the right, MSNBC claims it's leaning to the left. More news at 11.
@charliespiering: I won't stop shaking until Obama makes a speech telling me that everything is ok and that he has a plan
@Ben_Howe: As all of DC leaves work at the same time, the United States experiences a brief economic recovery.
:D hehehehehehehehehehe
The first two are hilarious.... :D
Michale.....
You say that Obama is the best thing going.
Correction: "he's the only game in town now"
How is that [the situation in Ohio/Wisconsin/etc] any worse than what the rest of the country is facing?
- More people being laid off in the public sector
- Less investment in industries which would create jobs
- Federal stimulus money (which would have created jobs) turned down
- More cuts (which don't create jobs)
- More of the same policies (deregulation and privatization) which haven't worked in the past
- Much more of a link between Wall St and the government
Instead of trying to convince people to "not vote Obama" maybe you should talk to conservatives about trying to come up with some better candidates or plans. For example, why not a Jon Huntsman? And not just as a Veep?
Or ... why not conservatives who are more flexible and less religious about things like taxes?
Or are you just a dittohead :)?
-David
Instead of trying to convince people to "not vote Obama" maybe you should talk to conservatives about trying to come up with some better candidates or plans.
The GOP won't put up a viable candidate for the same reasons that the Dem Party won't primary Obama.
Too entrenched in Political Dogma and Ideology to do what's right for the COUNTRY, not what's right for the Party...
You want a better candidate?? Then quit settling for less...
It's really that simple..
I highly encourage you to read Tom Clancy's EXECUTIVE ORDERS...
It shows how leadership SHOULD be....
And it COULD be... If the American people demanded it...
It's up to you progressives... Being Party-less, I can't do a thing. I can't even vote in Primarys...
For example, why not a Jon Huntsman? And not just as a Veep?
Are you saying you would vote for Huntsman over Obama???
Michale.....
Michale [37] -
OK, those were funny, I have to admit.
My reaction? 5.8? That's not such a big deal... how long did it last? Less than 5 seconds? Out here in CA, an earthquake of that magnitude would merit one day's mention in the news...
Heh.
-CW
Michale -
OK, here's some more:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/08/23/earthquake_jokes/index.html
My favorite: "New York earthquakes are better because of our thinner crust"
Heh.
-CW
"Anybody want to guess where Ghaddafi's hiding?"
Just a wild guess on destination. If you have Google Earth or equivalent:
27 14'25"N 14 39'10"E. Just a little desert oasis with an 11000 ft runway, an underground complex, and some dismantled nuclear facilities.
The marching bulls on my front page? That latter sentence is their poop.
War always involves a certain luck factor, but good planners don't depend on luck. They depend on skill. That is why leaders identify and hone skills in subordinates. Basic NCO training manual.
CW,
My reaction? 5.8? That's not such a big deal... how long did it last? Less than 5 seconds? Out here in CA, an earthquake of that magnitude would merit one day's mention in the news
What was special about this quake was it's range.. It was felt as far north as Toronto and as far south as Atlanta...
As I read it, there hasn't been a quake this big in that area since 1897...
That New York twit was pretty funny... :D
Matt,
War always involves a certain luck factor, but good planners don't depend on luck.
You just don't get it, do you??
According to your savior, THIS WASN'T A WAR!!
If it was a war, then Obama violated the War Powers Act. Setting a very dangerous precedent by doing so. Do you honestly believe that the GOP president in 2014 will bother with the WPA anymore?
And if, according to you, Obama is such a good planner, why does he frack up everything else??
Or is it your contention that the ONLY thing your personal savior can plan well is "war"???
Face it, Matt. Obama got lucky.. REAL lucky.. I doubt you will find anyone here who thinks that Obama actually planned all of this...
On another note.. Kudos on the quote box... It makes things a LOT easier to read and reference. Wanna share how you did that?? :D
Michale.....
Lemme ask you something Matt..
In your commentaries, I have never seen you condemn Obama for anything..
Obama was always right and it was always the Right's fault, the Tea Party's fault, the Professional Left's fault etc, etc, etc..
You never blamed or condemned Obama for anything. Which is OK, because Obama does the same thing. He never takes responsibility for his screw-ups. He blames everyone and everything else up to and including "bad luck". That's pathetic in an of itself, but let's concentrate on your commentaries.
Do you think that there is ANYTHING in the last couple years that is actually Obama's fault?? Do you think he has messed up anything??
Do you condemn Obama for ANYTHING??
Just curious...
Michale......
LB,
Just a wild guess on destination. If you have Google Earth or equivalent:
27 14'25"N 14 39'10"E. Just a little desert oasis with an 11000 ft runway, an underground complex, and some dismantled nuclear facilities.
That's pretty kewl!! :D
Reminds me of a scene in THE EVENT
Michale.....
Why does Michale hate America?
"How's Iran working out for ya?" well, for starters, we didn't lose 13000 American dead, 4 trillion dollars in immediate war costs and more than 100000 wounded Americans. Of course, since Michale is in no danger of actually going to any of the wars it doesn't matter. Typical. Newt, Tancredo, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney ... All big war hypers, all draft dodgers.
And before you ask, I did my time in the Marines '70-'73
LB,
That's pretty kewl!! :D
Reminds me of a scene in THE EVENT
Michale.....
Never mind, Matt...
I figured it out... :D
Michale.....
Oh I have paid my dues...
I have served in two branches of the US Armed Forces.. US Air Force and US Army. I was an Army MI specialist/analyst during the first Gulf War and have served as an LEO and an FSO for the better part of two decades all over the world...
My bona fides are well established...
I honor you for your service...
Regardless, Carter frak'ed up in Iran.. That has been established as fact..
Obama pretty much frak'ed up in Egypt.. While the jury is still out, Egypt is descending into an Islamist hell hole. All the indicators are there..
Libya?? Did you read their new "Constitution"?? The VERY first Article establishes Islam as the "Religion Of The State" and Sharia as the "Jurisprudence Of The State"...
Now, honestly... How does that NOT sound like Iran??
Michale.....
David,
The more I read about Huntsman, the more I like him.. But he has one position that is a deal breaker for me..
If it's Huntsman vs Obama, I will likely stay home...
Michale.....
DF
Newt, Tancredo, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney ... All big war hypers, all draft dodgers.
I think you forgot a name or two there..
Biden and Clinton...
I am sure I can dig up a few more names from the Left, but I think you get my point..
There isn't a slur, a slam or an attack that you can hurl at the Right that doesn't also apply to the Left..
That is why I enjoy my NPA status so much.. I am free to criticize BOTH Partys because I am not enslaved by ideology or dogma from EITHER Party... :D
Blog Note: For those who like the Box Quote feature that Matt initially used, the attribute is LESS THAN blockquote GREATER THAN.. Don't forget to close it at the end of the quote...
While I like it and I think it looks pretty nifty, it's just too much extra typing.. I'll stick with my tried and true italics :D
Michale.....
My favorite picture of the earthquake damage ...
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/3/DC_Devastation.jpeg
:)
I had an interesting thought this morning. What would happen if Obama announced that he switched parties and became a Republican?
Of course this would never happen. But it does make you think about how much people vote and think based on party "brand". It would really mess with a lot of peoples' minds :)
-David
David,
My favorite picture of the earthquake damage ...
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/3/DC_Devastation.jpeg
:)
Now THAT was funny!! I laughed so loud my wife ran out of the bedroom wondering what the hell was up! :D
I had an interesting thought this morning. What would happen if Obama announced that he switched parties and became a Republican?
It would remind me of that scene in SOUL MAN with C Thomas Howell.. When it was discovered that Howell was really white instead of black, the scene cut to several people saying, "Ahhhh, no wonder..." and "So THAT's why!!" :D
But yer right. The Left would go into galactic spasms.
But I still bet he would have supporters who would say, "OK. So... He's a Republican"....
"OK.. So... She's a dog."
-Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS
:D
Michale......
But yer right. The Left would go into galactic spasms.
Yup. Though you'd also get some folks saying "About time he finally admitted it ..."
Think about the Right too.
Think about how he's been demonized and suddenly he says "I'm really one of you ..."
:)
But I still bet he would have supporters who would say, "OK. So... He's a Republican"
Yup. That sounds about right.
Matt,
In your response to me, you missed one...
Where's your proof that Libya is NOT likely to go the way of Iran??
I am sure it was just an inadvertent oversight.... :D
Michale.......
Interesting thought......
Daffy has a huge stockpile of WMDs in the form of chemical weapons and nuclear material..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/us-libya-nuclear-heinonen-idUSTRE77N1MZ20110824
I have to wonder if Daffy, who has nothing to lose now, would use his WMDs converting Tripoli to a radioactive wasteland...
I know, I know... Worst-Case scenario.....
"Never underestimate a man who has nothing to lose."
-Ice T, SURVIVING THE GAME
The Libya "victory" could go south really fast...
Michale.....
"DF
Newt, Tancredo, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney ... All big war hypers, all draft dodgers.
I think you forgot a name or two there..
Biden and Clinton...
you catch my drift ..."
Actually, no, I DON'T catch your drift. Yes, Clinton was a draft dodger. Biden had Asthma (in a similar vein, John Wayne ( the REAL John Wayne, not the fake one that Palin loves) had flat feet.
Tancredo: "Depression"
Cheney: College, College, Grad school, Grad School,..., child
Wolfowitz: college
Feith: college, and a lax draft board
and so on.
Yeah, Clinton was a draft dogdger and he burned his draft card, BFD. He wasn't a chicken hawk.
Yeah, Clinton was a draft dogdger and he burned his draft card, BFD. He wasn't a chicken hawk.
No??? I seem to remember a big hulaballooo about destroying an aspirin factory...
Regardless, my point still stands..
Any slur, attack, or slam you can make against the Right applies to the Left as well..
Such is the nature of political bias and bigotry...
Michale.....
DF,
{RE Iran}well, for starters, we didn't lose 13000 American dead, 4 trillion dollars in immediate war costs and more than 100000 wounded Americans.
This is true...
But Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons which they will likely use against Israel and other countries in the MidEast, thereby resulting in MILLIONs of dead, and hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage...
Good call, Carter... :^/
To be fair, subsequent Presidents also failed the American people and the world by not dealing properly with Iran...
"You don't fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog."
-Senator, THE SEIGE
The US should have given Israel the green light on Iran a long time ago...
Israel knows how do deal with these sorts of situations, even if the US lacks the testicular fortitude to do it...
Michale.....
Regarding the Libya euphoria...
Even Ben over at Daily Banter sounds notes of caution....
http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2011/08/not-so-quick-on-libya-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fbenfu1%2Ftdb+%28The+Daily+Banter%29
So don't get mad at me when I say that it ain't all that....
Michale.......
Not a good sign..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903352704576536721588294828.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
I don't think the US is going to be welcome at any table in the new Libya government..
Michale.....
It was pointed out just after we began attacking Libya -- with alarm -- that American involvement might cost upwards of one billion dollars.
I trust I'm not the only one who heard that last phrase in the voice of Dr. Evil.
Matt Osborne over at OsborneInk.com has the best overall wrapup of the war
Meanwhile in a nearby universe, Stratfor has ongoing coverage of the war, with Tripoli plunged into a bloodbath of house-to-house fighting and Gadhafi still ruling all the areas that really matter. Ok, I exaggerate. Slightly.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110829-libya-premature-victory-celebration
Meanwhile in a nearby universe, Stratfor has ongoing coverage of the war,
Nice to see someone else enjoys the intel provided by STRATFOR :D
Michale.....
And now were facing the final FINAL (no really, it's "Final") Battle for Libya...
FINAL 'FINAL' BATTLE IN LIBYA...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-30/libyan-rebel-leader-jalil-gives-qaddafi-loyalists-until-sept-3-to-submit.html
“In England, if you commit a crime, the police don't have a gun and you don't have a gun. So, if you commit a crime, it's like, 'Stop! Or I'll say stop again!'”
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
Michale.....
And btw, Michale, I just replied to a question in one of your old comments here:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/08/17/libyan-battle-map/#comment-15898
Do you know how I know that the US won't get a seat at the Libya table??
Because Iran has told the US not to...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ee159abe0e0b3f7c4e870162182b6233.2c1&show_article=1
dsws,
I saw that, but was too late to get my 2 cents in..
So let me address it here...
I guess what I mean by "support" is, would you vote for Obama.
Let's say the election is today. You have a choice...
Obama
Un-named Democrat
Who would you vote for right now??
Michale.....
In a primary? I wouldn't make things easier for a Republican in the general election by voting in favor of a primary challenge.
In a hypothetical general election between two Democrats? It would depend on the opponent. Many have supported the same fiscal catastrophe.
In a primary? I wouldn't make things easier for a Republican in the general election by voting in favor of a primary challenge.
So, like most registered Republicans, you would have an eye more on electability, rather than on what's best for the country.. You would vote for the Democrat more likely to win, rather than vote for the Democrat that is better qualified to lead this country..
With great respect, isn't that like putting Party before Country??
Michale.....