Skip to main content

View Diary: Declaration of Thingamajig (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In defense of Obama (7+ / 0-)

    There are NO troops on the ground in Lybia.

    There is NATO involvement that was secured before we went in.

    We encouraged other countries such as France to take the lead on this one.

    There was no "You're with me or against me" language coming from the White House to anyone that questioned this.

    So far, I haven't seen talk of any "Curveball" type figure that sweet talked or tricked him into doing this.

    Yes, I'm troubled that Obama didn't go to Congress to get an official approval, but then again, he can't be sure that he could even get a appointment for Dog Catcher through Congress right now.

    I thought this was supposed to be a capital "D" Democratic site.

    Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

    by DeanNC on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:19:40 AM PDT

    •  Yes, he didn't do (23+ / 0-)

      all the awful things Bush did, but that's a rather low bar -- and doesn't speak to the wisdom, morality, and legality of this kinetically enhanced thing-doodle.

      As for this:

      There was no "You're with me or against me" language coming from the White House to anyone that questioned this.

      There's this quote this morning in the Hill, from an administration official.

      "And I think, astoundingly, there is a move in the House of Representatives to take an effort as it relates to the ongoing effort to stop a tyrant in Libya and to turn it into a political football in such a way here as to give, at a critical time -- potentially send a very negative signal to the leadership of that country, which, as we all know, has over the course of time carried out hateful and heinous attacks against U.S. citizens, including terrorist attacks."

      Got that? If Congress asserts its legal authority, it's aiding Gaddafi.

    •  capital "D" does not mean "Deferential" (15+ / 0-)

      Being a "D" site means that we should accept that President Obama's disregard for the Constitution, simply because it is not as egregious as the previous presidents lies and distortions?

      In my mind, good Democrats (or any right thinking citizens) call BS when their Government is taking illegal action.  No free pass for a guy from our team.

      Can you really state that we have NO troops on the ground?  I don't believe that for a second.

      •  Forward observers. (0+ / 0-)

        How do we drop a bomb and not hit civilians without them?

        I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-bullshit.

        by 2dimeshift on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:42:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you really think that we use... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, Johnny Q

          ... human "forward observers" to verify the nature of our targets before the drones or bombers fly in?   Do you really believe that we are avoiding civilian targets during all of this bombing?

          I wish I could believe that our military is so beneficent.

          •  Yes, I do. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            A drone strike 80 miles from the nearest town is one thing. "Precision" bombing in a city is quite another.

            I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-bullshit.

            by 2dimeshift on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 07:56:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I prefer a utilitarian assessment to purist pearl (0+ / 0-)

            clutching. The real question is whether more civilians will die as a result of NATO bombing or from Gadaffi's massacres that the bombing has prevented by keeping his troops in check and allowing the rebel forces to push them back. Even then, if more do die, I suspect there is an attitude of "give me liberty or give me death" amongst the rebels. But perhaps you'd find such a view of the situation offensive? Or maybe you wouldn't. After all, if the US pulled out they'd get what they wanted, right?

      •  RE: troops, that's your burden of proof (0+ / 0-)

        You can't prove a negative (i.e. that there are not troops on the ground, god does not exist, etc.) so ball's in your court if you're going to make that accusation.

        Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

        by DeanNC on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, (4+ / 0-)

          undercover special forces are gonna advertise their presence on the ground like that.

        •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

          I can't ask you to prove a negative.  I also can't really make that accusation.

          However, I have a hard time believing that our "action" in Libya is not designed to escalate into something much bigger.   I need look no farther than the mission creep from the Vietnam War, to understand how things can progress from a few CIA/thinktank Advisors to 2,700,000 troops.  I'm not saying that the same will happen in Libya, but the lesson of Vietnam clearly illustrates the "camel nose in the tent" of most military escalations.

          The amount of oil in Libya will necessitate an indefinite "peace-keeping mission" to occupy the country after Khadaffi dies.  What do you see as the end game?  Do we just kill Khadaffi and leave or do we stick around semi-permanently?

          •  Now this is a good point. What congress could rule (0+ / 0-)

            on, just as they could have done on Iraq or AfPak, is setting limits on the engagement. But the corruption of the US democratic system means that opposition to Pentagon demands somehow means one is opposed to individual members of the military, in favor of defeat by foreign powers, or similar. That doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. However, I think the problem would be less existing precedent, and more that which would be set. No more forever wars.

    •  He's a Republican in disguise (0+ / 0-)

      You can see it in his eyes
      He's telling dirty lies
      He's a Republican in disguise
      In disguise

      Sung to the tune of the Flying Burrito Brothers  "Christine's  Tune"  http://www.youtube.com/...

      •  bullshit and you know it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sandav, Futuristic Dreamer

        Did you even read my post?  

        Imagine Palin and old boy McCain anywhere close to "the button" and you know half the world would be on fire now.

        People here love to scream that there's no difference between Obama and Republicans but that bullshit reeks from a mile away.

        Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

        by DeanNC on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but it's no BS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah

          A lot of people thought Obama would be another FDR, but that hasn't happened. In fact he, like Bill Clinton, is the antithesis of FDR.

          If you look at his actions, he' a lot more like George H.W. Bush than FDR or LBJ.

          Things would deffinitely been different with McCain as President. Because Wall St backed Obama, I think the Bail-Out of Wall Street wouldn't have happened the way it did. I think Main Street would have gotten much more attention. Just because McCain's a Republican doesn't mean he's Bat-Shit-Crazy like many of his brethren.

          BTW I'd prefer a real Progressive as President, but not many Democrats fit that description any more.

          •  You obviously haven't been paying atten. to McCain (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming

            He just accused illegal immigrants of starting wildfires.

            He went from being one of the most moderate republicans to one of the most conservative in the last few years.

            Wall Street owns both parties so of course the bailout would have happened.  You just wouldn't have gotten the Frank-Dodd bill (meager as it was) out of it if McCain won.

            Of course I prefer Obama to be more progressive (I think he personally is) but he can't snap his fingers and make a public option appear when it wasn't there.

            He can't make the GOP become somewhat sane and reasonable.  

            Proud to share my name with Howard Dean

            by DeanNC on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 04:21:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The antithesis of FDR would be Hoover. (0+ / 0-)

            Clinton was no Hoover (no intern jokes, please)

      •  Repubs hate his guts, almost as much as the (0+ / 0-)

        "true progressives" do.

    •  He sure as hell didn't have any problems (12+ / 0-)

      with Congress when it came to Bernanke & Geithner, did he?

      As a hardcore Democrat, Obama has shaken my faith. Imagine what he's done for independents.

      by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like when the *sancrosanct* 60 vote... (5+ / 0-)

        ...canard requirement disappeared when it came time for Bernanke's reconfirmation, only to reappear after the vote?

        Ask not what Obama can do for you, but what you can do for Obama!

        by Uberbah on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 11:42:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or how... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah, aliasalias

          Reid insisted we needed 60 votes...but only had 50 something votes for the PO.

          And the following year invoked reconciliation....

          At which point Nancy Pelosi decried the votes for a PO didn't exist in the Senate and promptly removed the PO from the house reconciliation bill.

          What an odd series of happy coincidences which miraculously led to a bill resembling a Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's, which upon passage, led to Insurance Co stocks going up.

          IRS:  Enforce the flow of money to Insurance Co's.

          ???:  Enforce cost controls.  Haha.  We'll leave that up to the states.  snort  giggle

          Someone who isn't sophisticated enough might ask:  "Well gee, don't the states already regulate the Insurance Companies?  And looking at the state of Insurance .... might one question if the States are actually able to regulate them?"

          Hilarious.

          As a hardcore Democrat, Obama has shaken my faith. Imagine what he's done for independents.

          by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 01:22:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Another important point is ther rebels (0+ / 0-)

      there asked for help. People act like this was a unilateral action taken on Obama's part, and ignore what was happening on the ground there.

      •  but (5+ / 0-)

        if ten rebels tell us to piss off, and one asks us to stay, which one do we listen to?

        And remember, the one will probably be killed by the ten if we leave, so we need to stay and protect him.

        Wait, I guess I'm talking about Iraq.  Oh well.

        •  For Libya, that's really not what's happening (0+ / 0-)

          unless all the information coming out of the country in every form is all propaganda (by whom?). That seems unlikely. My suspicion is that a lot of Beltway insiders would rather the US was not in Libya, that events were left to run their course, and that the old oil-tick relationship with Libya via the Gaddafi mob was re-established. They believe in the inherent stability of "our sons of bitches" and that the Arab Spring will fail. Admittedly there are grounds for that; the post revolutionary period is ripe for subversion. That's the aspect of Libya and other post-revolution countries that progressives really need to get involved in, IMO.

    •  There was no prior consideration (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, Nada Lemming

      or discussion of "non-kinetic" alternatives.  

      One would think that people who help plan twitter revolutions in 3rd world military dictatorships would have a back up plan in place in the event things go awry.

      "My father always told me that all businessmen were sons of bitches, but I never believed it until now." - JFK during the 1962 Steel Crisis

      by Betty Pinson on Thu Jun 23, 2011 at 12:50:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not True (0+ / 0-)

      The UN Resolution passed. Then France, UK, and US - acting independently of NATO - began airstrikes on Libya.

      NATO involvement did not come about until some 9 days after the whole thing began.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site