Guest editorial by MESTuesday, March 22, 2011 at 3:42am
We knew this would happen with the Libyan conflict. The neo cons are belly aching about President Obama's "dithering" instead of invading Libya guns blazing Rambo style, killing everyone not wearing an American flag lapel pin or swearing allegiance to American Jesus Ronald Reagan.
Joining the chorus of neo-cons are those who are upset the United States is even supporting joining the "no fly zone" with France and Great Britain and the Arab League, claiming the US "bowing down" to them and the United Nations.
Of course, there are natural born cynics who believe that we shouldn't be there under any circumstances. How many tin pot dictators do we need to take out? There are just too many, and trying to pay my car note is a higher priority than Libyan rebels.
Lastly, we have this new breed of constitutional law scholars who sprung up over night who KNOW the President has violated his enumerated powers granted by the constitution. Republicans and Democrats are now using the "i" word, impeachment because Obama went to the UN, talked to senate reps, and bombed Qaddafi. It's not like he lied to the UN and the entire world to link a terrorist attack to a country that had NOTHING to do with that attack. That's ok. The very people that were so gung ho for war is now so concerned about "collateral damage" and the civilians that could possibly be killed. People being blown up, guns, missiles needing to be replaced (defense contracts), regime change for brown people, what's not for a conservative to like?
I'm confused...When Bush's hillbilly holy war to spread "freedom and democracy" began in Iraq began in 2003, terrorist organizations were kidnapping contractors and posting the be headings online. Bush leaning on his podium with that cocky crooked smile defiantly said, "We don't negotiate with terrorists", "Bring 'em on" and I'm the Decider." No one said a word, no screeching histrionics about wanting their country back.
When Sadaam's sons were killed, their dead mutilated bodies were posted on every television and web page, but that was ok, because they were Saddam's sons and they allegedly killed his own people. How did Saddaam use chemical weapons against his own people? Where did he get it from? The United States. That's what happens when we intervene. I digress...
With all that has happened in Iraq, one of Bush's Middle Eastern policy makers stated,
"The President traded the effectiveness of early action for political cover, the administration is itching to get out in days, not weeks and turn the operation over to France, Britain and other allies. It get's better:
" How does that look? , calling the U.S. role “intervention on the cheap” and accusing Obama of “rejecting leadership on principle” instead of continuing the traditional U.S. role as first among nations. While allowing European and Arab nations to take the lead may be fine militarily and from a cost standpoint, politically it projects “a sense of diminishing U.S. influence more broadly.”
Have I been dreaming for the last decade? Didn't Gates, McCrystal and Powell, all of the people that have stripes and have served in the military, say that the military was stretched to thin? Didn't grampa Munster McCain even say that? It's kind of hard to be the first and the best when you are owned by the Chinese and are engaged in two wars and have an electorate that think FEMA concentration camps are real. and Glenn Beck is a prophetic voice from God. What God, I'm not sure...
Dennis Kucinich has joined in "impeachment" cacophony, talk about party solidarity. That's always the democrats problem isn't it? They have superior intellect but for some reason they decide to wander off the reservation and detach their balls, drench them in kerosene, set them on fire, jump in the Prius for sushi and wonder why they lost the election.
It appears all of the "anti-American" if you criticize the president talk has been erased in two years maybe because we had our first functionally retarded president, and now we have our first communist, Marxist, Nazi black president. The logic is there, but only in the southern states.
Anything Obama does will be criticized. He acted to soon, to late, it's to expensive, it's a war on the cheap, it's political posturing, it's Bush's fault, it's Obama's fault, does bail outs, he added to the deficit, he's a ditherer, he lacks leadership, he rises above, no drama Obama, he's detached...The irony of him being criticized by likes of Lynn Cheney, Sister Sarah, and Bush's Middle Eastern Advisor and all of the new constitutional law experts that exist under the flag of tea party should make Obama and his staff very fearful about re-election. Whatever mileage he had after the Gabby Giffords shooting is slipping.
As usual, Obama has not articulated and effectively communicated what our long term goals are, what is the mission. Will this be another situation where we run in, play security, train the military and the police occupy the entire country and have no exit strategy? Will we have more Abu-Graib's? Why is this loophole to bomb Libya that Obama pulled suddenly "impeachable?" Bush should've been impeached first. I know, Obama said he would never use his Presidential authority in this way, but no President gives up Presidential authority, that's like eating one potato chip.
Again, no one said a word about the Patriot Act, Rendition, Spying on Americans for the sake of feeling safe, and Guantanamo. The lie that kept being parroted was, "Bush kept us safe", Not so, it takes time to effectively plan, fund and execute a major terrorist attack. 9/11 took years to pull off, it wasn't just a bunch of random dudes that woke up one morning and decided to hijack some planes.
This is the sort of psychological projection that conservatives have mastered in the media. Notice how now, the conservatives are spinning the Obama Administration lacks a "clear strategy" in Libya meme? Here's the thing - if the Obama Administration were to explicitly lay out a "clear strategy" to the liking of conservatives, they would howl and scream about how this president is "giving away military strategy".
Recall their complaints when Pres. Obama announced goals to end military operations in Iraq by a set date - they were livid, claiming that the enemy would just wait us out. Now they complain when the President doesn't tell all. As others have noted, all you have to do is listen to the statements from the Administration to ascertain their goals -
establish a no fly zone and deter the Libyan Army from attacking civilians, all these per the UN resolution. It's THAT simple.
What's chaffing conservatives is Pres. Obama simply isn't in this to build chest-thumping kudos for America like his predecessor. That's why they were angry with his relatively subdued approach when the events unfolded in Egypt, allowing the people to take credit for what happened, not the USA. He's not going into Libya with the bravado that armchair generals desire or cowboy diplomacy that got shoes thrown at his predecessor. Are some actions politically motivated? Absolutely. He's a politician. However, I don't think he thinks or runs the WH like he is in campaign mode funneling misinformation through fox news or has a bunch of flunkies like Karl Rove slithering in his own ooze infiltrating civilized society telling lies with a pale forked tongue.
What the American people need to understand are the political realities the President faces which are a direct fallout of Bush's policies. It's because of those policies the
US CANNOT take a lead role and MUST NOT appear to act unilaterally. America is paralyzed, having squandered the goodwill and trust of the world, especially the Arab world at least 40 years ago, through our mismanagement of Afghanistan, Iraq, interventionism in the West Bank, Israel and so on...
Thanks to our desire to spread the joy of McDonald's, "Jesus"/ Ronald Reagan and pop music to the Middle East, we can't be the GI Joe, we have to be the little green stationary men, with no names.
Hypocrisy never get's old.
