It was a false outrage then, and it would be a false outrage now.

Could have sworn that I just read a story on Mediaite about Kucinich leading the charge against Obama on Libya. Hmm.

Simple explanation. The new warmonger-in-chief has a D on his jersey.

The anti-war protestors and the media were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

They put Party over principles.

Just a show of hands from all you flaming liberals-How many of you knew O-Mao-Bama would turn out to be so corrupt? Did you all know this? Did you really want him to destroy this country? What planet will you all live on when there is nothing left? You’ve seen in all your favorite socialist or communist countries the ceremonial taking out the accused, blindfolds and then a bullet into the back of your heads right? Are you all really still so deranged over Bush that this is the blood you want shed to exorcise your demons. LMFAO! heheheheheheheheheheheheh!

Semper Fi-ooooogggggghhhhhhhRRRrraaaaagggghhhhhh! BRING IT!

Herman Cain-2012

Shep Smith: ‘It’s Astounding’ Liberals Aren’t Up In Arms Over Obama’s Wars

No, it’s not. The Left is full of swinish hypocrites.

Wonder why no one from Code Pink is showing Obama or his minions a bloody hand like they did to Rice?

And again, where are all the massive anti-war protests?

Where’s Cindy Sheehan? Shouldn’t she be camping out in Obama’s favorite golf course?

Where are the photos and video of flag-draped coffins that the media demanded to show when Bush was in office?

Shouldn’t the folks over at MSNBC be focussing on these new wars? Especially since he didn’t even bother to get Congressional approval?

Thelonious Funk said:
Could have sworn that I just read a story on Mediaite about Kucinich leading the charge against Obama on Libya. Hmm.

Oh, one guy. Where is all the coverage of these wars in the media? Where are all the war protestors?

How to spot a liberal by David Kramer.

First off, look for semblance of superiority, because in their own mind, they are the brightest bulb in the fluorescent pack.

Second, whatever they say when a Republican office, be assured they will say the exact opposite when a Democrat holds the same office.

Third, watch for signs of insanity, this can be found here- Profile of the Sociopath

Fourth, whatever you do, do not go out with them to eat, they always have to go to the powder room when the bill comes.

Fifth, be assured if one of their minority slaves stray, they will call them every name in the book.

Sixth, two of the best descriptions that define them, hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, goes far in proving that they are liberals. There stances seem to change as their party takes power.

Seventh, do as they say, not as they do.

Eighth, cronyism, corruption and failure to pay their taxes is their modus operandi.

Ninth, Power to the People, as long as you are one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaCI3h9r5Sk

Thelonious Funk said:
Could have sworn that I just read a story on Mediaite about Kucinich leading the charge against Obama on Libya. Hmm.

Yes… that contitutes the entire anti-war left. 1 guy… good job man. Wow… what a M0R0N.

Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
ust because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

That’s It… they’re just whispering…

slickerwick said:
Oh, one guy. Where is all the coverage of these wars in the media? Where are all the war protestors?

The war protesters are in the same place as the feminists. Hiding under a rock and betraying all the principles that the older lefties fought for. What we are seeing is reverse racism, of course. If Obama were a red head named O’Brien, they’d be marching in the streets just like old times.

The anti-war movement went frozen like an iceberg immediately Obama got elected; there isn’t actually anything such as the anti-war movement now that Obama is president; you’ll see the movement rise up again and take formation when a Republican is elected president.

Right now we don’t even know if the left-wing anti-war movements like Code Pink do exist, but during Bush’s presidency, they were all over the country holding protest rallies when there were only two wars ongoing. Right now Obama not only continued the 2 wars started under Bush WITH APPROVAL FROM BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, rather he started 2 new wars WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, technically involving the US military in 4 Middle East wars AT THE SAME TIME, yet no single opposition by activists and the Liberal mainstream media.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

F@#k you Royal Turd-you’re a bunch of pussies!

At least we can all now conclude that world peace was never the objective of those opposing the wars under Bush’s administration; rather they all had other left-wing agendas and hiding under the name of anti-war and world peace.

LOGICandREASON said:
The anti-war movement went frozen like an iceberg immediately Obama got elected; there isn’t actually anything such as the anti-war movement now that Obama is president; you’ll see the movement rise up again and take formation when a Republican is elected president.

Right now we don’t even know if the left-wing anti-war movements like Code Pink do exist, but during Bush’s presidency, they were all over the country holding protest rallies when there were only two wars ongoing. Right now Obama not only continued the 2 wars started under Bush WITH APPROVAL FROM BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, rather he started 2 new wars WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, technically involving the US military in 4 Middle East wars AT THE SAME TIME, yet no single opposition by activists and the Liberal mainstream media.

Oh, Code Pink is hard at work fomenting chaos and war in the Middle East. Be assured that when a Republican is elected to put a stop to it they’ll be back in our own streets, protest signs and effigies in hand.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

I laughed so hard I accidentally upvoted your post.

MrTPar_taY said:
F@#k you Royal Turd-you’re a bunch of pussies!

As if to prove my point.

If the so called anti-war movement were so furious in their opposition over 2 wars, what then is the logic behind their silence over 4 wars ongoing technically?

2010 was the deadliest year in the 10 year old Afghan war, yet we did not see the Liberal mainstream media highlighting this in every single news headline. During the Bush years, the first thing you hear when you turn on the TV was death toll of US military service men, the Liberal media kept counting, every 10th,100th 1000th deaths of US military who died in combat, but now most people are not even aware that 2010 was the deadliest year for US military in Afghanistan.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

There you go, walk it back, walk it back.

Now you are using your inside voice or something. Where are the hanging or burning effigies of Obama? Where are the assasination films? Where is Michael Moore making a fakeudramentory?

Pfffft.

And you using God in your comment, do not make me laugh.

I guarantee you that if Obama gets reelected he’ll bring back the draft and then the liberals will be screaming mad.

http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

DavidKramer said:
do not make me laugh.

As if to prove my point. Again.

I shouldn’t try. I imagine it would seem odd and unnatural to you.

tatboy said:
It was a false outrage then, and it would be a false outrage now.

Exactly. Well said.

slickerwick said:
Simple explanation. The new warmonger-in-chief has a D on his jersey.

The anti-war protestors and the media were more anti-Bush than anti-war.

They put Party over principles.

Just like the Republicans who are carping about these wars now but praised them when it was Bush.

Both sides put party over principle. Thus my No Party Affiliation.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms.

Seriously? During Bush, the left was screaming about it. Now, not so much. Conversely, the same conservatives/GOP that got us into them now claim to have always been opposed. Liars and scoundrels all.

Remember when George Bush was a reckless cowboy for stampeding us into wars (albeit with 95% Congressional approval)? Now we have a President telling Congress to mind it’s own business.

Remember when every conflict Bush engaged in was morally wrong because those nations posed no threat to us? I guess Libya and Yemen our parked just off of our coasts.

Remember when Obama was going to restore all the warm fuzzies in other nations towards us when he dismantled our war complex? Hollywood probably approves of him because he has conflict in more theaters than Bush ever had.

And remember how Bush supposedly lied in order to get into conflict? Obama told us with a straight face that there would be no ground troops in Libya — and inside of one week thousands of Marines were called up from North Carolina.

I must have misread those misunderestimated those “Hoax & Change” posters from the election.

Do you think that maybe the Soros anti war demonstration funds just all of sudden dried up?

I wonder if Michael Moore will come out with another blockbuster or something?

What about Cindy, why has the left disowned her now? Why are they not championing her pain and anguish now?

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

Why aren’t you and your cohorts louder? You were loud enough under Bush. And there were only 2 wars then, now there are 4. Add Libya and Yemen to the pot.

Surveillance has been ramped up.
Patriot Act has been extended.
Obomber is locking up whistleblowers.
Gitmo remains open.
Rendition still in place.
And war, war, war.

All those thing liberals used to care about don’t mean diddly now.

The simple explanation is body count.

LOGICandREASON said:
The anti-war movement went frozen like an iceberg immediately Obama got elected; there isn’t actually anything such as the anti-war movement now that Obama is president; you’ll see the movement rise up again and take formation when a Republican is elected president. Right now we don’t even know if the left-wing anti-war movements like Code Pink do exist, but during Bush’s presidency, they were all over the country holding protest rallies when there were only two wars ongoing. Right now Obama not only continued the 2 wars started under Bush WITH APPROVAL FROM BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, rather he started 2 new wars WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, technically involving the US military in 4 Middle East wars AT THE SAME TIME, yet no single opposition by activists and the Liberal mainstream media.

Do a search for them, CodePink is still active. They are busy protesting at the Washington Monument, they are mad because they cannot dance there. LOL…
but seriously, they are still protesting. It is just that the LSM isn’t covering thier protests with baited breath anymore, because the LSM’s “Chosen One” is in power now.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

I remember some of the anti-war protests during the Bush years being… “loud, hot-headed and violent”. Not saying *you*… but you saw the video footage just as well as I did.

This is an easy answer. Because liberals aren’t really about values or substance, they are only about politics, war conducted by a Democrat is A-OK with them. It is only a bad thing when a Republican does it.

I have been asking for a couple of years…what happened to Cindy Sheehan. It’s like she dropped off the face of the earth.

MediaWhorse said:
The simple explanation is body count.

So haw many does Obama have to kill for you to get upset? It’s YOUR point, I’m just looking for a number…

Everyone sees the Lib/Progs whistling past the grave yard. There is no need to try and get them to admit it. All we have to do is remember in November ’12.

slickerwick said:
They put Party over principles.

Party over country as well.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Just because we’re not as loud, hot-headed and violent as those who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq doesn’t mean we’re not up in arms. Remember, God has come to us in a still, small voice. Remember, T. Roosevelt taught us to speak softy. We’ll leave the histrionics to others.

code pink found God now

Ramrants said:
This is an easy answer. Because liberals aren’t really about values or substance, they are only about politics, war conducted by a Democrat is A-OK with them. It is only a bad thing when a Republican does it.

I have been asking for a couple of years…what happened to Cindy Sheehan. It’s like she dropped off the face of the earth.

The Dems threw her under the bus once she served her purpose. She’s become an Unperson. Down the memory hole she goes.

Simba said:
Do a search for them, CodePink is still active. They are busy protesting at the Washington Monument, they are mad because they cannot dance there. LOL…but seriously, they are still protesting. It is just that the LSM isn’t covering thier protests with baited breath anymore, because the LSM’s “Chosen One” is in power now.

RutRoh…. before the spelling police give me a “gotcha”…. I see that – their – is misspelled above. My bad.

Bravo Shep. These damn wars. It’s become rather obvious that with our economic weakness, the administration has decided to show our only remaining strength – and that’s our military. The more we use it, the weaker we become, the more our deficit grows and the moral high ground we lose. Make no mistake, this war in Libya is an aggressive war just as the war in Iraq was.

I’m not liberal and I’ve had way too much .

“Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you’ve never sung before
Let it fill the air
Tell the people everywhere
That we, the people here, don’t want a war

Now no doubt some folks enjoy doin’ battle
Like presidents, prime ministers and kings
So let’s build them shelves where they can fight among themselves
and leave the people be who like to sing”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ1ohsissjE

Where are all the bumper stickers saying, “impeach Obama”, “try Obama as a war criminal”, “Obamas illegal war” ect?

Double standard among the left is pathetic!

Keeva said:
Exactly. Well said.

Just like the Republicans who are carping about these wars now but praised them when it was Bush.

Both sides put party over principle. Thus my No Party Affiliation.

Seriously? During Bush, the left was screaming about it. Now, not so much. Conversely, the same conservatives/GOP that got us into them now claim to have always been opposed. Liars and scoundrels all.

In fact, many of the official party aren’t all that put off by Obama’s military actions. They praise him for it. But of the constituents, there were many conservatives who’ve always maintained our military enterprises then and now were geopolitical and economic mistakes, yet weren’t so crass as to express it in the manner as was the fad during the Bush administration. They wouldn’t want their presence to contribute to weight of numbers marching for pacifism, as wrong-headed a concept a free people can possibly have, or to appear to lend voice to that anti-American sentiment commonly expressed by those angrily being led into the streets by leftist demagogues. They were smarter than that. They knew they didn’t have much sway in party politics back then. Instead, they factored in poll numbers, questioned policy on call ins to talk raidio or otherwise detracted from the sidelines while the war party had a full head of 9/11 fueled steam. That there’s now some public opposition on the right to the wars shouldn’t be all that surprising. It’s a reflection of those who’ve long held such notions that are finally being expressed because the landscape has changed somewhat in their favor.

It also does not at all surprise that the organized left has fallen into line almost to a man. It’s in keeping with their philosophy of the leadership principle to all follow a strategy based on a single set of talking points. Their opposition to war then was politically motivated; and their silence to it now is as well. In large part, the only honest debate within the country as to what’s best for the country is between factions of the conservative movement, for which the only vehicle is, unfortunately, the Republican party.

tatboy said:
So haw many does Obama have to kill for you to get upset? It’s YOUR point, I’m just looking for a number…

All wars are not equal, and Democrats who protested the Iraq war — where 75-100 US soldiers were dying per month, the entire rational put forward by the Bush administration turned out to be false, and the costs were billions per month — are not hypocrites for saying nothing on the Libya war — where there has yet to be a single US death, the costs are far lower, and we were not lied to about the threat.

Lumping them all together as if they’re equal is rank stupidity, which is par for the course for conservatives.

MediaWhorse said:
All wars are not equal, and Democrats who protested the Iraq war — where 75-100 US soldiers were dying per month, the entire rational put forward by the Bush administration turned out to be false, and the costs were billions per month — are not hypocrites for saying nothing on the Libya war — where there has yet to be a single US death, the costs are far lower, and we were not lied to about the threat. Lumping them all together as if they’re equal is rank stupidity, which is par for the course for conservatives.

agree with some of what you say, but what threat was libya, and to be clear is it only the body count of americans?

Someone remind me the war that OBAMA STARTED

Bill Huggins said:
Someone remind me the war that OBAMA STARTED

libya, yemen

cjd ohio 1 said:
libya, yemen

No, I wrote WARS.

What are the WARS Obama started? You know what war is, I hope…

Bill Huggins said:
Someone remind me the war that OBAMA STARTED

Obama campaigned against the Bush war effort, demonized the man for his war stance, his zeal to invade nations that posed no threat to the U.S., the body counts, ect. Obama painted himself as the saving dove of pacificity to restore our country’s good name abroad. He was even granted the Nobel Peace Prize (heh-heh) preemptively, because he would restore the good graces trod upon by Bush. Now in office Obama has expanded the war effort, extended the Patriot act, and has instituted 2 additional war theaters against unthreatening countries (to our shores at least).

Bill Huggins said:
No, I wrote WARS. What are the WARS Obama started? You know what war is, I hope…

bombs and people die , yeah i know what war is, do you?

The comments by the lefties on here just proves what I already knew for years.
The very minute Obama came into office I knew the left’s anti-war movement had died.
They never cared about ending the wars, they just wanted a Dem to be the warmonger.
Everything about the left is fake. Everything they say, do and believe is fake. Everything.
All they care about is control.
They want to control your actions, our money and our lives.
They want us to be exactly what they are. Servants to the state, drones, expendable unthinking organic machines. slaves.
Never in history has an animal been so easily swayed to betray everything it once belived in. It just shows how easily manipulated a “liberal” can be. And all it took was one smile from the great Obama and every “liberal/progressive” in the collective fell on to their knees and said ” Do with us what you will. We are yours. Our life for you”.
Such miserably inadequate vermin.

No you damned idiots.

We on the left, the progressives told you new clowns to get out of that quagmire as soon as possible.

But noooooooooo “we will be greeted with showers of candy and flowers”

- “Six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”

How about ten years?

Does THAT put things in perspective?

Like the Iraq war, which the President has almost drawn to a close? Or the Afghanistan war, which will be drawing to a close soon? Or the Libyan non-war, which is about little more than protecting civilians and in which few, if any, US ground troops are involved?

I’m sorry, Shep Smith is about the sole Faux News-er I respect, but seeking a responsible end to unnecessary wars is NOT the same thing as starting them to begin with.

Reagan “cut and run” from Afghanistan in the ’80s, and we ended up with Taliban rule and 9/11.

How about

“The Iraq war will pay for itself”

Yes. It is. Dana Rockingcoacrach just got thrown out of Iran for suggesting the USA is entitled do steal the Iraqi oil.

I don’t see this as a valid argument. You righties condemn the left for being in a military action in Libya and not being critical of it. You are critical of the left and say all the left is antiwar. At the same time you like to point out that the democrats voted in mass to invade iraq. Now Obama did not vote to go into Iraq. But he was never critical of the Afgan war and neither was the majority of the left. Sure some of the left were but so are some of the right(Ron Paul. the tea party in general). You equate the left with anti war but thats not true. Hell most of the wars in the 20th century were under democratic presidents. Obama feels military action in Libya was needed, he may be wrong I don’t know but he’s never been anti war. He’s was anti Iraq war. You guys on the right were as critical of Clinton when he chose to bomb Serbia(wag the dog blabla) but that turned out to be the right thing to do. I can almost guarantee that a republican would have done the same in Libya. We are in NATO, now apparently our allies are taking some criticism here for not carrying the load, and rightly so. Same thing happened in Serbia. This will work out one way or another. The party that is always antiwar is the party that is not in power, happens every time.

cjd ohio 1 said:
bombs and people die , yeah i know what war is, do you?

Yes, and it’s not your rather simplistic take on it.

Still waiting on that list of wars OBAMA STARTED

Bill Huggins said:
Yes, and it’s not your rather simplistic take on it.

Still waiting on that list of wars OBAMA STARTED

Hold your breath.

Bill Huggins said:
Yes, and it’s not your rather simplistic take on it. Still waiting on that list of wars OBAMA STARTED

well you have to define war as you see it

Bill Huggins said:
Yes, and it’s not your rather simplistic take on it.

Still waiting on that list of wars OBAMA STARTED

Don’t get me wrong. The wingnutz are working on the

“But, but, but, President Obama GOT US into Libya!” and

“he made us LOSE
in Afghanistan and Iraq!”

Ok. It’s been a few years since I watched Shep, but I always thought he was one of the better White Noise Network people.

It took him two years to figure this out? More drone strikes in Pakistan than under Bush. Drone strikes in Yemen under the auspices of the fact that it is the Yemeni government. Bagram that makes Gitmo look like Disneyland.

Really? It took two years for you to figure this out?

There have been people like Glenn Greenwald who have been on this since the start, but one can never tell if he’s on his meds from day to day.

Anyone happened to see anything like this in the U.S. media? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,768344,00.html

the Libya ‘not war’ is a good description. Apparently if there’s no armed forces on the ground, then the liberals are quiet.

In truth, McCain always says that it’s a matter of deaths, not troops on the ground, which seems to hold true. No one complains about our troops in South Korea because there’s no combat deaths. But, the Libya conflict does show that Americans should have clear goals and justification by the president…

Where is the press on this? Too busy reading palin’s emails I suppose….

MartiniShark said:

Saw a great cartoon the other day where Obama said in one caption, “I’m going to continue all of the former policies.”

One guy says, “Then we’ll vote for somebody else.” The other guy says, “What? And let the bad guys win?”

lillyluminatus said:
Like the Iraq war, which the President has almost drawn to a close? Or the Afghanistan war, which will be drawing to a close soon? Or the Libyan non-war, which is about little more than protecting civilians and in which few, if any, US ground troops are involved?

I’m sorry, Shep Smith is about the sole Faux News-er I respect, but seeking a responsible end to unnecessary wars is NOT the same thing as starting them to begin with.

Reagan “cut and run” from Afghanistan in the ’80s, and we ended up with Taliban rule and 9/11.

5 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq a week ago. Gates has said we must not withdraw from Afghanistan at this moment and Obama listens to him. Tell the civilians being killed by our forces that Libya is a non-war. Tell the civilians being killed by our predator drones that Yemen is not a war or Pakistan. Remember when O got on the tv and said the Libyan mission would last days, not weeks? It’s been 3 months. Both R and D senators have a lawsuit to force him to abide by the War Powers Act. But go ahead, keep living in your Obot dream world and turn a blind eye to the facts.

Oenolicious said:
Saw a great cartoon the other day where Obama said in one caption, “I’m going to continue all of the former policies.”

One guy says, “Then we’ll vote for somebody else.” The other guy says, “What? And let the bad guys win?”

Sorry. That was a response to MartiniShark’s rather insightful comment and I’m new to the site. Been surfing it for a bit, because I like to be able to skip the White Noise Networks as much as possible. This site is not always great, but it is probably about as much of the aforementioned “News” networks that I can stand.

Oenolicious said:
Ok. It’s been a few years since I watched Shep, but I always thought he was one of the better White Noise Network people.

It took him two years to figure this out? More drone strikes in Pakistan than under Bush. Drone strikes in Yemen under the auspices of the fact that it is the Yemeni government. Bagram that makes Gitmo look like Disneyland.

Really? It took two years for you to figure this out?

There have been people like Glenn Greenwald who have been on this since the start, but one can never tell if he’s on his meds from day to day.

Anyone happened to see anything like this in the U.S. media? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,768344,00.html

It’s true. There’s been a split in the left between the neolib Obots and the progressives. You see it on the lefty blogs. The neolibs will defend anything Obomber does while the progs are infuriated with him and calling him Bush III.

Bill Huggins said:
Yes, and it’s not your rather simplistic take on it.

Still waiting on that list of wars OBAMA STARTED

Yemen and Libya. What do you call the launching of drones? Patty-cake? Peaceful relations? Attacking another country with military weapons is war. Hell, it used to be that even imposing a blockade was an act of war.

Of course the ultra left is critical of Obama, who cares? He knows they will vote for him anyway. Whats hilarious is that the right is suddenly critical of Obama fighting wars. THEY want a clear goal? What the heck was the clear goal in IRAQ? What was the clear goal In Afgan? What was the clear goal in Lebanon? What was the clear goal in Somalia? All of a sudden the right want a clear goal when no once did they ask for one in Iraq. The goal for Libya is try and to prevent a massacre pure in simple. Hopefully Kadaffi will leave or be killed, how can the right be against this. Kadaffi is a convicted mass murderer. You guys don’t know what you want.

slickerwick said:
It’s true. There’s been a split in the left between the neolib Obots and the progressives. You see it on the lefty blogs. The neolibs will defend anything Obomber does while the progs are infuriated with him and calling him Bush III.

I wouldn’t use these words to name the groups but this is pretty accurate. Obama fans = the majority of Daily Kos, most bloggers at Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, while dissenters can be found on FireDogLake, for instance, and Salon, The Nation, and a lot of smaller blogs.

I wonder if part of the confusion is assuming that all the people who strongly, strongly opposed the war in Iraq were “anti-war liberals.” But they weren’t! Obama kicked off his campaign arguing that he wasn’t against all wars, just dumb wars, with the obvious point that Bush’s Iraq war was a dumb war. That’s where most of the Democratic Party was – with Obama, against Bush’s war, but not otherwise anti-war. The part of that group that could be characterized as “anti-war liberals” is much smaller and that’s why they’re not making as much noise today. And the money and power and think tanks and all on the Democratic side are not going to turn on Obama based on where he is now. They’re not that liberal! Only on Fox’s opinion shows are they liberal or “far left,” where the term is used to include everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

insideguy said:
I don’t see this as a valid argument. You righties condemn the left for being in a military action in Libya and not being critical of it. You are critical of the left and say all the left is antiwar. At the same time you like to point out that the democrats voted in mass to invade iraq. Now Obama did not vote to go into Iraq. But he was never critical of the Afgan war and neither was the majority of the left. Sure some of the left were but so are some of the right(Ron Paul. the tea party in general). You equate the left with anti war but thats not true. Hell most of the wars in the 20th century were under democratic presidents. Obama feels military action in Libya was needed, he may be wrong I don’t know but he’s never been anti war. He’s was anti Iraq war. You guys on the right were as critical of Clinton when he chose to bomb Serbia(wag the dog blabla) but that turned out to be the right thing to do. I can almost guarantee that a republican would have done the same in Libya. We are in NATO, now apparently our allies are taking some criticism here for not carrying the load, and rightly so. Same thing happened in Serbia. This will work out one way or another. The party that is always antiwar is the party that is not in power, happens every time.

The difference is that O hasn’t sought Congressional approval. A lawsuit is being brought by both D and R Senators at this moment. He’s in violation of the War Powers Act. Plus he has to abide by the Constitution which he is not doing.

da-wdc said:
I wouldn’t use these words to name the groups but this is pretty accurate. Obama fans = the majority of Daily Kos, most bloggers at Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, while dissenters can be found on FireDogLake, for instance, and Salon, The Nation, and a lot of smaller blogs.

I wonder if part of the confusion is assuming that all the people who strongly, strongly opposed the war in Iraq were “anti-war liberals.” But they weren’t! Obama kicked off his campaign arguing that he wasn’t against all wars, just dumb wars, with the obvious point that Bush’s Iraq war was a dumb war. That’s where most of the Democratic Party was – with Obama, against Bush’s war, but not otherwise anti-war. The part of that group that could be characterized as “anti-war liberals” is much smaller and that’s why they’re not making as much noise today. And the money and power and think tanks and all on the Democratic side are not going to turn on Obama based on where he is now. They’re not that liberal! Only on Fox’s opinion shows are they liberal or “far left,” where the term is used to include everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

The flouting of the Constitution has both the left and the right concerned. He’s also generating heat from the left for his violations of civil liberties–as Greenwald has said, he’s worse than Bush in those areas. For the first time an American citizen has been targeted for assassination by order of the President without any legal charges being filed. (Al-Alwaki.) I was just watching CNN and both Kucinich and Rand Paul were in agreement about the violations of the Constitution under this President.

DavidKramer said:
Do you think that maybe the Soros anti war demonstration funds just all of sudden dried up?

I wonder if Michael Moore will come out with another blockbuster or something?

What about Cindy, why has the left disowned her now? Why are they not championing her pain and anguish now?

Soros would just make money from war, why bother protesting against it? You aren’t very smart, lol.. maybe you shouldn’t be tackling about things your brain can’t handle.

This is amazing you guys are all of a sudden concerned about civil liberties? This is such political bull crap its amazing. The left did the same thing with Gitmo. Of course Kucinich and Rand Paul and his dad are against this stuff, they are against all of this stuff all the time! Their foreign policy consist of getting out of all countries and all wars thats no secret. When did Bush go to congress for Panama? When did Reagan go to congress for Lebanon? When did Jefferson go to congress for Tripoli? Did Reagan go to congress when he bombed Libya the first time? Of course the far left is concerned about civil liberties. What they don’t understand is that he is campaigning for president anymore he is president. Tough decisions have to be made on a daily basis. Now he has the right against him who all of a sudden are anti war what a joke.

The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO.

If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

Nacho said:
The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO. If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

lol, under american command for the first week, nato which the US is part of

Nacho said:
The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO. If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

and no authorization from the US congress

slickerwick said:
Yemen and Libya. What do you call the launching of drones? Patty-cake? Peaceful relations? Attacking another country with military weapons is war. Hell, it used to be that even imposing a blockade was an act of war.

NOPE. Try again

He will go to congress and get it cjd, no way that congress will leave those civilians hanging at this point don’t you see that?

You guys on the right declared a WAR On Terror now you are upset about drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan? Please be consistent. Its been stated this war has no borders so deal with it. Its so overtly political on your part its almost comical.

insideguy said:
You guys on the right declared a WAR On Terror now you are upset about drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan? Please be consistent. Its been stated this war has no borders so deal with it. Its so overtly political on your part its almost comical.

hell i all for blasting the sh@t out of people, its the left that define war, just ask huggins here, bring our troops home and use these countries as a proving ground for all i care

slickerwick said:
5 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq a week ago. Gates has said we must not withdraw from Afghanistan at this moment and Obama listens to him. Tell the civilians being killed by our forces that Libya is a non-war. Tell the civilians being killed by our predator drones that Yemen is not a war or Pakistan. Remember when O got on the tv and said the Libyan mission would last days, not weeks? It’s been 3 months. Both R and D senators have a lawsuit to force him to abide by the War Powers Act. But go ahead, keep living in your Obot dream world and turn a blind eye to the facts.

You’re entirely right. The United States should play absolutely no role in world affairs.

Um no it’s not, liberals are hypocrites. End of story.

“It’s true. There’s been a split in the left between the neolib Obots and the progressives. You see it on the lefty blogs. The neolibs will defend anything Obomber does while the progs are infuriated with him and calling him Bush III.”

I have a hard time describing Obama supporters as neo-liberals in the sense it was used during the Clinton administration (Obama has always reminded me more of being Mr. Peabody with the American people as Sherman, and the direction is the Great Society) anymore than I do the term neo-conservative used for most of Bush 43′s administration. I do hope that no one has mentioned the Peabody/Sherman connection before and if so I owe all apologies.

I could blame David Frum, who differentiated the “neo-cons” from “paleo-conservatives” like Pat Buchanan, but now he participates with “No Labels”, except I still label him a lightweight intellectual douche.

insideguy said:
This is amazing you guys are all of a sudden concerned about civil liberties? This is such political bull crap its amazing. The left did the same thing with Gitmo. Of course Kucinich and Rand Paul and his dad are against this stuff, they are against all of this stuff all the time! Their foreign policy consist of getting out of all countries and all wars thats no secret. When did Bush go to congress for Panama? When did Reagan go to congress for Lebanon? When did Jefferson go to congress for Tripoli? Did Reagan go to congress when he bombed Libya the first time? Of course the far left is concerned about civil liberties. What they don’t understand is that he is campaigning for president anymore he is president. Tough decisions have to be made on a daily basis. Now he has the right against him who all of a sudden are anti war what a joke.

The right is not anti-war, people are upset with him flaunting the WPA. You list those previous encounters but you are conflating police actions with occupational forces. Congress is upset with Libya right now because we have crossed the 60 day mark of forces in that land. Explain how this is not a war effort when the US is leading the forces, and Obama called up 2,200 marines to the area.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be there, but now we are understanding why this administration insisted on those bull-crap euphamisms for what they are enforcing in the Middle East. They will say they are not in violationof the WPA because this is not a war, it is a “Kinetic Military Action”. They are going to dangle legalese in order to skirt Congress and the Constitution.

cjd ohio 1 said:
lol, under american command for the first week, nato which the US is part of

a whole week? lol

Both sides are hypocritical thats the worst part about it. Neither is consistent and both try and use these conflicts as political advantage for the next election.

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
End of story.

We should only be so lucky.

insideguy said:
now you are upset about drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?

I believe Oboma was the one who was “upset” about the bombing back when he wasn’t the one doing said bombing. Did you mention “consistency?”

Nacho said:
The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO. If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

launched by who? american command

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
Um no it’s not, liberals are hypocrites. End of story.

Is that the best you can do? Real torment there.

MartiniShark said:
Remember when George Bush was a reckless cowboy for stampeding us into wars (albeit with 95% Congressional approval)? Now we have a President telling Congress to mind it’s own business.

And remember how Bush supposedly lied in order to get into conflict? Obama told us with a straight face that there would be no ground troops in Libya — and inside of one week thousands of Marines were called up from North Carolina.

I must have misread those misunderestimated those “Hoax & Change” posters from the election.

The Marines are not deployed in Libya, so what is your point?

jakester said:
The Marines are not deployed in Libya, so what is your point?

Yes they are. Try to keep up.

What troops are on the ground in Libya Martini? If he chooses to send marines into Libya he will get approval from congress. You are arguing a possible action in the future that has not occurred yet. Im a lefty but a realistic lefty. I didn’t rip on Bush for going into Iraq. I ripped on him for not having the proper intelligence and realistic expectations of what this would take to do it right. His intelligence was flawed, he reacted to fast and now we are there and still getting troops killed. If Obama screws up Libya in a similar fashion I will be as critical of him as I am of Bush.

Those Marines have been launching airstrikes and conducting maneuvers and recovery missions in Libya since they were called up. My point is this peacenik President has no qualms going into conflict, despite what he says.

Nacho said:
The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO.

If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

Tell that to the D and R Senators who are taking him to task. We are NATO, we bear the brunt of the cost and materiel. He was forced today to submit what the cost has been to the American taxpayers so far on this war. It’s in the billions.

MartiniShark said:
My point is this peacenik President has no qualms going into conflict, despite what he says.

What did this “peacenik” President say about conflict?

insideguy said:
What troops are on the ground in Libya Martini? If he chooses to send marines into Libya he will get approval from congress. You are arguing a possible action in the future that has not occurred yet. Im a lefty but a realistic lefty. I didn’t rip on Bush for going into Iraq. I ripped on him for not having the proper intelligence and realistic expectations of what this would take to do it right. His intelligence was flawed, he reacted to fast and now we are there and still getting troops killed. If Obama screws up Libya in a similar fashion I will be as critical of him as I am of Bush.

You understand of course that he had the same intelligence that Congress had, as well as the intelligence agencies of our allies, and for that matter the U.N.? Bush wasn’t holding a file in his hand and refusing to show it to everyone, while saying “Trust Me”. He worked in concert with the intelligence agencies from our allies, who all had, and followed, the same intel, leading to over 30 allies joining us into Iraq. I never understand how it is Bush supposedly fooled all of Congress, and dozens of our allies, and the United Nations, in order to go to war. Everyone was on the same page.

MartiniShark said:
You understand of course that he had the same intelligence that Congress had, as well as the intelligence agencies of our allies, and for that matter the U.N.? Bush wasn’t holding a file in his hand and refusing to show it to everyone, while saying “Trust Me”. He worked in concert with the intelligence agencies from our allies, who all had, and followed, the same intel, leading to over 30 allies joining us into Iraq. I never understand how it is Bush supposedly fooled all of Congress, and dozens of our allies, and the United Nations, in order to go to war. Everyone was on the same page.

“You’re either with us, or against us”

-Jesus
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
-Benito Mussolini
-George W. Bush

Nacho said:
What did this “peacenik” President say about conflict?

“We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war. I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.”

Nacho said:
“You’re either with us, or against us” -Jesus-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin-Benito Mussolini-George W. Bush

I’m sure you think that is some sort of refutation of the facts.

Greenwald, progressive columnist for Salon, wrote in his column today:

“The very idea that the President can start and prosecute wars on his own, without democratic consent, is not only lawless but is the hallmark of an empire, and it’s long past time to put an end to that abuse. Even Bush went through the motions of having Congress endorse his wars.”

Rachel Maddow is on right now all like “they’re not even calling this a war? it’s ‘hostilities’?” Hasn’t she noticed before?

MartiniShark said:
“We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war. I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.”

“We’ve got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we’ve got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.”

From the same proclamation that you cherry picked.

Nacho said:
“We’ve got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we’ve got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.” From the same proclamation that you cherry picked.

I “cherry picked”?? It’s four sentences of his own declaration. So in one speech he can say we never should have gone gone to war, and it was a “profound strategic error” to go in, yet he is supposedly a hawk on the issue??
Note also how he says we have to take out terrorist bases in Iraq, which is something Bush supposedly was lying about in the first place. Then, just as now, he is all over the map with his words, and ill-defined with his actions.

MartiniShark said:
You understand of course that he had the same intelligence that Congress had, as well as the intelligence agencies of our allies, and for that matter the U.N.? Bush wasn’t holding a file in his hand and refusing to show it to everyone, while saying “Trust Me”. He worked in concert with the intelligence agencies from our allies, who all had, and followed, the same intel, leading to over 30 allies joining us into Iraq. I never understand how it is Bush supposedly fooled all of Congress, and dozens of our allies, and the United Nations, in order to go to war. Everyone was on the same page.

Exactly. And he had Congress’ blessing. Yet, all the lunatic lefties scream for war crimes prosecutions. Here we have 0bama defying the war powers act and nary word about war crimes. The hypocrisy, as Shep said, is astounding.

MartiniShark said:
I “cherry picked”?? It’s four sentences of his own declaration. So in one speech he can say we never should have gone gone to war, and it was a “profound strategic error” to go in, yet he is supposedly a hawk on the issue??
Note also how he says we have to take out terrorist bases in Iraq, which is something Bush supposedly was lying about in the first place. Then, just as now, he is all over the map with his words, and ill-defined with his actions.

You claimed he was a “peacenic” President that was against going into conflict, despite what he said.

He did not say that he was against going into conflict.

He said he was against going to war in Iraq, he was right.

Maybe he was in favor of kinetic military action in Iraq.

Since when is Obama a peacenic this is a fallacy. When did he say he was all peace and love Martini? He was the one who sent 50,000 more troops to Afganistan, He was the one who had special forces go into Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden. Only the far far left had any delusions of him being a peacenik. You seem to correlate the far left with the mainstream left constantly as do most conservatives. I could do the same with the far right, and say well Ron Paul didn’t want us in Iraq or for that matter Pat Buchannen or whomever. I know they don’t represent the right as a whole. I will say this again if Mccain was in office we would be in Libya, hell he went there and supported them recently. This is all political bullcrap, Libya is in our interests and any president would be doing the same thing as Obama is doing, talk yourself out of that if you want but its a fact.

Who knows where the Democrat party stands on the war fronts?

They are opposed to the Patriot Act…except when they are in favor of it.

They are against bombing countries in undeclared wars….except when Obama does it

They think the war in Iraq can’t be won….until they decide that troops are necessary there to secure victory

They are opposed to the troop surge…until after it works and they want to take credit for the success.

They think that expanding the war fronts into additional countries is imperialistic and evil…until Obama starts expanding the war fronts

They support the War Powers Act…except when a Democrat president is in office

They are against Guantanamo…until a Democrat president wants to keep it open

They want to put terrorists on trial in civilian courts….until they change their mind and want to put them on trial in military tribunals

They think that bombing Muslim countries is bad for the US’s image….except when their guy is dropping the bombs

Etc. etc. etc.

Has anyone ever seen a more confused, incoherent, and unpredictable approach to military matters? Jimmy Carter looks like Churchill by comparison to Obama. And don’t you love watching liberal hosts, such as Rachel Maddow, doing constant flip-flops and mental gymnastics in their desperate efforts to prop up their knee-tingling politician of choice?

For one, I’m not carping about whether we should be in Libya, I’m opposing his skirting Congress to do it. I find it hilarious however that Bush was under fire for going into a nation that was deemed no threat to the US, and nation-building by removing Hussein. What the hell is Libya then?

And yes, Obama has enacted a number of military maneuvers, but to answer your question Obama campaigned against Bush’s war efforts. Look at the earlier quote I gave from his debate with Hilary. He ran as the anti-Bush, the anti-cowboy — and here he is, engaging in conflict in more theaters than Bush.

felixw said:
Who knows where the Democrat party stands on the war fronts?

They are opposed to the Patriot Act…except when they are in favor of it.

They are against bombing countries in undeclared wars….except when Obama does it

They think the war in Iraq can’t be won….until they decide that troops are necessary there to secure victory

They are opposed to the troop surge…until after it works and they want to take credit for the success.

They think that expanding the war fronts into additional countries is imperialistic and evil…until Obama starts expanding the war fronts

They support the War Powers Act…except when a Democrat president is in office

They are against Guantanamo…until a Democrat president wants to keep it open

They want to put terrorists on trial in civilian courts….until they change their mind and want to put them on trial in military tribunals

They think that bombing Muslim countries is bad for the US’s image….except when their guy is dropping the bombs

Etc. etc. etc.

Has anyone ever seen a more confused, incoherent, and unpredictable approach to military matters? Jimmy Carter looks like Churchill by comparison to Obama. And don’t you love watching liberal hosts, such as Rachel Maddow, doing constant flip-flops and mental gymnastics in their desperate efforts to prop up their knee-tingling politician of choice?

Well said.

I would give an opinion but nuance does not exist on Mediaite.
I wish it did. We are all worse without it.

Not many adults here!

Ronald Reagan would be ashamed of many on this site.
The revolution eats its young.

Liberals, remember your words when George Bush was in office; doing so will prove to yourselves what phonies you are.

slickerwick said:
Has anyone ever seen a more confused, incoherent, and unpredictable approach to military matters? Jimmy Carter looks like Churchill by comparison to Obama. And don’t you love watching liberal hosts, such as Rachel Maddow, doing constant flip-flops and mental gymnastics in their desperate efforts to prop up their knee-tingling politician of choice?

oh yea and ClusterFuk Bush was a genius wen it came to foreign policy..loll…. the reason we are still stuck with these wars is because of president Cheney..ooops i mean the other war monger -Bush.
oBAMA WANTS TO PULL THE TROOPS OUT AND THE gop CRY BABIES START WHINING THAT WE SHOULD STAY TO WIN..We stay to win and they start crying we re wasting time there.
Cluster FUK Bush left a mess and Obama is trying to clean it albeit w/o the help of the GOP….. as many have said the only opponent Obama has in 2012 is the economy …period!! if that doesnt improve america might even elect an idiot like Paylin or Palenty…or any of the lackluster GOP candidates

felixw says:

Once again felix you correlate the democrats to the far left. Aren’t you the same type the say well the democrats voted for action in Iraq? If they were anti war and anti patriot act why did the democrats vote for these things? Its like me saying well all republicans want to physically deport all illegal aliens. This is not true but the far right does. I don’t correlate what the extreme of a party says or does then represent that as a whole. Obama backtracked on Gitmo the same way George Bush backtracked on getting involved in foreign entanglements. When these guys get in reality kicks them right in the face and they have to be president not a candidate for president.

felixw said:
They

insideguy said:
felixw says: Once again felix you correlate the democrats to the far left. Aren’t you the same type the say well the democrats voted for action in Iraq? If they were anti war and anti patriot act why did the democrats vote for these things?

You are forgetting a key detail. The democrats turned once the conflict in Iraq became tougher to execute and it became politically expedient. You cannot excuse the democrat leadership – Reid, Pelosi, and many other – outwardly battling Bush after a few years and politicising the war effort. Recall the way the dems treated Gen. Petreaus when he went to the Hill one year? They held pressers criticising him BEFORE he had sat and spoke to them.

I suspect at the rate things are going, tea baggers at some point will reject Ronald Reagan. (George Bush Senior is already being purged)

If this continues Jeb bush will end up being a leftist. The ultimate irony may be the left actually supporting Jeb.

I recommend everyone no matter what their politics is to learn about the French revolution.

BTW we have a Mariana statue (Liberty) in New York harbor. This is significant.
Lazarus was an afterthought.

Nature Freak said:
I would give an opinion but nuance does not exist on Mediaite.
I wish it did. We are all worse without it.

Not many adults here!

Hey Freak of Nature….Mediaite is like PMSNBC. If I don’t like it, I change the channel! Or NEVER watch it.! So STFU! HAHAHA

Im not forgetting that detail felix, what you seem to be forgetting is the democrats turned against bush when no weapons of mass destruction were found. Which was the primary reason for going in. Now you can blame the democrats in congress for falling for this bs as well go ahead. But BUSH was president he made the call and it was a bad one. Did the democrats make political hay out of it ? THey sure as hell did the same way the republicans are trying to make political hay out of Libya or the economy and are conveniently forgetting that their man Bush was in office when we were losing 700,000 Jobs a month, and are now trying to blame the economic collapse on Obama.

Andrew Brietbart is obviously an intelligent individual. I underestimated him, and I would shake his hand as a formidable enemy. Andrew really impressed me the past few weeks (seriously). I say that without irony and someone who pays attention to politics. He schooled many of us in the center and the left.

I still harbor great, great distrust of you Andrew.

Brietbart, you need to understand with your new power comes responsibility. This is your challenge. If you do it right I may actually end up liking you (anything is possible).

At least I finally saw a photo of Andrew smiling. You need to outreach to others who disagree.

I will probably catch hell from both sides for what I have written.

D REX said:
oh yea and ClusterFuk Bush was a genius wen it came to foreign policy..loll…. the reason we are still stuck with these wars is because of president Cheney..ooops i mean the other war monger -Bush.
oBAMA WANTS TO PULL THE TROOPS OUT AND THE gop CRY BABIES START WHINING THAT WE SHOULD STAY TO WIN..We stay to win and they start crying we re wasting time there.
Cluster FUK Bush left a mess and Obama is trying to clean it albeit w/o the help of the GOP….. as many have said the only opponent Obama has in 2012 is the economy …period!! if that doesnt improve america might even elect an idiot like Paylin or Palenty…or any of the lackluster GOP candidates

Well, you did a lousy copy and paste there. I didn’t post that. Asshat.

Bill Huggins said:
NOPE. Try again

So, bombing a sovereign nation isn’t an act of war? What do you think that those folks call it?

Both you and Obama can spin the lexicon trying to find PC way to describe this action, but the bottomline is, when someone drops a bomb on your head, it’s an act of war. And btw, it only takes one side to decide that fact for all bets being off. See Osama bin Laden’s declaration for reference.

Nature Freak said:
Andrew Brietbart is obviously an intelligent individual. I underestimated him, and I would shake his hand as a formidable enemy. Andrew really impressed me the past few weeks (seriously). I say that without irony and someone who pays attention to politics. He schooled many of us in the center and the left.

I still harbor great, great distrust of you Andrew.

Brietbart, you need to understand with your new power comes responsibility. This is your challenge. If you do it right I may actually end up liking you (anything is possible).

At least I finally saw a photo of Andrew smiling. You need to outreach to others who disagree.

I will probably catch hell from both sides for what I have written.

I’m sure “Andrew” is hanging on your every word.

liberals aren’t “up in arms”?

obviously shep doesn’t know too many liberals.

felixw said:
Who knows where the Democrat party stands on the war fronts?

They are opposed to the Patriot Act…except when they are in favor of it.

They are against bombing countries in undeclared wars….except when Obama does it

They think the war in Iraq can’t be won….until they decide that troops are necessary there to secure victory

They are opposed to the troop surge…until after it works and they want to take credit for the success.

They think that expanding the war fronts into additional countries is imperialistic and evil…until Obama starts expanding the war fronts

They support the War Powers Act…except when a Democrat president is in office

They are against Guantanamo…until a Democrat president wants to keep it open

They want to put terrorists on trial in civilian courts….until they change their mind and want to put them on trial in military tribunals

They think that bombing Muslim countries is bad for the US’s image….except when their guy is dropping the bombs

Etc. etc. etc.

Has anyone ever seen a more confused, incoherent, and unpredictable approach to military matters? Jimmy Carter looks like Churchill by comparison to Obama. And don’t you love watching liberal hosts, such as Rachel Maddow, doing constant flip-flops and mental gymnastics in their desperate efforts to prop up their knee-tingling politician of choice?

the Demoratic Party (not the “democrat party”) was in favor of all of those things under bush.

just sayin’.

insideguy said:
Im not forgetting that detail felix, what you seem to be forgetting is the democrats turned against bush when no weapons of mass destruction were found. Which was the primary reason for going in. Now you can blame the democrats in congress for falling for this bs as well go ahead. But BUSH was president he made the call and it was a bad one. Did the democrats make political hay out of it ? THey sure as hell did the same way the republicans are trying to make political hay out of Libya or the economy and are conveniently forgetting that their man Bush was in office when we were losing 700,000 Jobs a month, and are now trying to blame the economic collapse on Obama.

Let me just summarize, invading countries is much more reasonable when Obama does it. The current poor US economy is still Bush’s fault. A second Obama term will heal all.

D REX said:
oh yea and ClusterFuk Bush … war monger -Bush…CRY BABIES START WHINING…Cluster FUK Bush … idiot like Paylin or Palenty…etc. etc.

Your comment speaks for itself.

And what it says is: “Mediaite moderator please delete me.”

insideguy said:
elix, what you seem to be forgetting is the democrats turned against bush when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

So of course they must think weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Libya? Because once you admit that its valid to take out a dictator like Gaddafi, then your arguments against Bush collapse. It then becomes just as valid to take out Saddam Hussein. You can’t have it both ways. Then again, logic is not the strong suit of Democrats these days.

Nature Freak said:
Andrew Brietbart is obviously an intelligent individual. I underestimated him, and I would shake his hand as a formidable enemy. Andrew really impressed me the past few weeks (seriously). I say that without irony and someone who pays attention to politics. He schooled many of us in the center and the left.

I still harbor great, great distrust of you Andrew.

Brietbart, you need to understand with your new power comes responsibility. This is your challenge. If you do it right I may actually end up liking you (anything is possible).

At least I finally saw a photo of Andrew smiling. You need to outreach to others who disagree.

I will probably catch hell from both sides for what I have written.

slickerwick said:
I’m sure “Andrew” is hanging on your every word.

Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science?

Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh.

You are not ready for prime time. This is not how politics work.

Nature Freak said:
Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science?

Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh.

You are not ready for prime time. This is not how politics work.

Perhaps slicker was just lowering himself to the level he thought he needed to be at to converse with folks on Mediaite.

Seems like I remember someone else telling me that was their theory. Who was that guy?

felixw said:
Who knows where the Democrat party stands on the war fronts?

They are opposed to the Patriot Act…except when they are in favor of it.

They are against bombing countries in undeclared wars….except when Obama does it

They think the war in Iraq can’t be won….until they decide that troops are necessary there to secure victory

They are opposed to the troop surge…until after it works and they want to take credit for the success.

They think that expanding the war fronts into additional countries is imperialistic and evil…until Obama starts expanding the war fronts

They support the War Powers Act…except when a Democrat president is in office

They are against Guantanamo…until a Democrat president wants to keep it open

They want to put terrorists on trial in civilian courts….until they change their mind and want to put them on trial in military tribunals

They think that bombing Muslim countries is bad for the US’s image….except when their guy is dropping the bombs

Etc. etc. etc.

Has anyone ever seen a more confused, incoherent, and unpredictable approach to military matters? Jimmy Carter looks like Churchill by comparison to Obama. And don’t you love watching liberal hosts, such as Rachel Maddow, doing constant flip-flops and mental gymnastics in their desperate efforts to prop up their knee-tingling politician of choice?

darladoon said:
the Demoratic Party (not the “democrat party”) was in favor of all of those things under bush.
.

Thanks for the comic relief. How many hallucinogenics did you need to take back in 2008 to decide that Obama was campaigning in FAVOR of Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, bombing Libya, etc.?

Nature Freak said:

Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science? history?

Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh.

You are not ready for prime time. This is not how the political system works.

If you can not have an adult conversation with me maybe you can direct me to someone who can. I grew up in a political family. My aunt was a mayor of a decent size city. This is not remotely how realpolitik works.

Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science? history? Law?

Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh.

You are not ready for prime time. This is not how the political system works.

If you can not have an adult conversation with me maybe you can direct me to someone who can. I grew up in a political family. My aunt was a mayor of a decent size city. This is not remotely how “realpolitik” works.

ImNotBlue said:
Perhaps slicker was just lowering himself to the level he thought he needed to be at to converse with folks on Mediaite.

Seems like I remember someone else telling me that was their theory. Who was that guy?

Again, Ronald Reagan would laugh at your face.
Someone must have really hurt you.

felixw says:

Felix your argument is foolish. Obama never said there were weapons of mass destruction in Libya. He and NATO stated that the primary reason for the Libyan involvement was to prevent civilians from being massacred. Now maybe it would have been ok with you if this had taken place. . See Felix this is a big bad world. There are other countries in this world besides the USA. France and England and the rest of Europe have major security and energy issues tied to Libya. If Gaddafi starts to wipe out people in mass that means bad news for europe as a huge influx of refugees would flood over into Italy France and Spain. These people are our allies. They are in NATO the same as we are. If they become overwhelmed by refugees that affects their already fragile economies which in turn affects our fragile economy. That is why we are involved and its a good reason to be involved. Bushs reason for going into Iraq may have been to remove Sadamn Hussein but that is not what he stated. He and his crew warned us of an impending mushroom cloud over a major US city if something was not done. It turns out that there was no nuclear program to speak of in Iraq and thats a fact.

Nature Freak said:
Again, Ronald Reagan would laugh at your face.

Because I referenced something YOU said?

Yes, I can see the humor in that. Although, from your perspective, I’m not sure I’d be proud of it.

Someone must have really hurt you.

Why’s that?

Nature Freak said:
Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science? history? Law? Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh. You are not ready for prime time. This is not how the political system works. If you can not have an adult conversation with me maybe you can direct me to someone who can. I grew up in a political family. My aunt was a mayor of a decent size city. This is not remotely how “realpolitik” works.

Tell us old wise sage, did the people of this decent size city only discuss matters your aunt deemed important or were these inferiors allowed to discuss issues they deemed important? Sounds like one hell of a decent size utopia

insideguy said:
. He and NATO stated that the primary reason for the Libyan involvement was to prevent civilians from being massacred. Now maybe it would have been ok with you if this had taken place. . .

well that is all the UN mandate states, but it does not stop nato(us) from trying to kill him Gadiffy

My 7th grade social science teacher would laugh at many of you. The reason you can not have an intellectual conversation with me is because you are unable to (at least I am beginning to think.).

Lets try for tomorrow. I am actually in real life not the ass I sometimes act like here on this website. I enjoy a good political conversion and i am a likeable person . Sometimes I can even be persuaded to change some of my opinions.

What are you scared of?

Nature Freak said:
My 7th grade social science teacher would laugh at many of you. The reason you can not have an intellectual conversation with me is because you are unable to (at least I am beginning to think.).

So we know you’re at least in 7th grade. I would have guessed around there.

Lets try for tomorrow. I am actually in real life not the ass I sometimes act like here on this website. I enjoy a good political conversion and i am a likeable person . Sometimes I can even be persuaded to change some of my opinions.

Why not try demonstrating that first… then demanding that people respect you. If you refuse to give respect, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get none in return.

What are you scared of?

Well, you’re the one who acknowledges that he acts rather unlikable on this site, but could do much better. So, what are YOU scared of?

True point cjd and if he happens to get hit by a stray cruise missile im sure the righties will begin to cry over that.

WaterLoo said:
Tell us old wise sage, did the people of this decent size city only discuss matters your aunt deemed important or were these inferiors allowed to discuss issues they deemed important? Sounds like one hell of a decent size utopia

Again, this is not how ronald Reagans 1976, 1980, or 1984 team would have responded. you are not ready for prime time. Your hubris will be your downfall. i am cocky and arragent as you have figured out. But at least i will admit it and shout “uncle’ on occasion.

The fact you will not have a serious conversation with me shows you are unable to. Every single president in American history laughs at you.

ImNotBlue said:
So we know you’re at least in 7th grade. I would have guessed around there.

Why not try demonstrating that first… then demanding that people respect you. If you refuse to give respect, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get none in return.

Well, you’re the one who acknowledges that he acts rather unlikable on this site, but could do much better. So, what are YOU scared of?

So lets start now.

insideguy said:
True point cjd and if he happens to get hit by a stray cruise missile im sure the righties will begin to cry over that.

not me, blast that son of a bitch

Maybe not you but you know as well as I that there will be critics:)

insideguy said:
felixw says: Felix your argument is foolish. Obama never said there were weapons of mass destruction in Libya. He and NATO stated that the primary reason for the Libyan involvement was to prevent civilians from being massacred. Now maybe it would have been ok with you if this had taken place. . See Felix this is a big bad world. There are other countries in this world besides the USA. France and England and the rest of Europe have major security and energy issues tied to Libya. If Gaddafi starts to wipe out people in mass that means bad news for europe as a huge influx of refugees would flood over into Italy France and Spain. These people are our allies. They are in NATO the same as we are. If they become overwhelmed by refugees that affects their already fragile economies which in turn affects our fragile economy. That is why we are involved and its a good reason to be involved. Bushs reason for going into Iraq may have been to remove Sadamn Hussein but that is not what he stated. He and his crew warned us of an impending mushroom cloud over a major US city if something was not done. It turns out that there was no nuclear program to speak of in Iraq and thats a fact.

I think I get your argument, when civilians are actually massacred in Iraq, war is wrong. But, when civilians potentially might be massacred in Libya, war is right. Folks you can’t make this stuff up

insideguy said:
Maybe not you but you know as well as I that there will be critics:)

always will be partisans, true

WaterLoo said:
I think I get your argument, when civilians are actually massacred in Iraq, war is wrong. But, when civilians potentially might be massacred in Libya, war is right. Folks you can’t make this stuff up

but waterloo does have a point here

WaterLoo says:Let me just summarize, invading countries is much more reasonable when Obama does it. The current poor US economy is still Bush’s fault. A second Obama term will heal all.

No Waterloo that would be simplifying things to much. See that would be like saying that whatever Obama does in both foreign policy and domestic policy is evil and bad, and I know there are no right wingers who would ever say that:)

have a good night everyone

Ayn Rand laughs at you.
Goldwater laughs at you
Ronald Reagan laughs at you
Newt Gingrich laughs at you
Alexander Hamilton laughs at you
Alexander Haig laughs at you
Margaret Thatcher laughs at you
Al Angrisani laughs at you
John Sears laughs at you
lee Atwater laughs at you

Does anyone here have any poly sci knowledge?
I suspect if i was a newbie on this site I would be still getting a runaround.
My respect for free republic has just increased, as even the freepers could converse with me regarding what i ask. So could WND.
Y’all are pathetic.
Mediaite is a pathetic website.

Uhhh No waterloo I just explained the the geopolitical ramifications of Gaddafi wiping out his population in Libya. Now Sadamn was wiping out the kurds after the first Iraq war but apparently Bush the 1st didn’t find that to important. Ohhhhhh wait he did now that I think about it he set up a no fly zone over the north and the south to try and prevent this massacre from happening. Now why would a US president go and do a thing like that? Hmmmm

I can get more intellectual conversation from Gawker and The New York post and TMZ, and about any news site existing online.

Please end my account Mediaite. Please. i know you mean well but I am getting frustrated. Thank you for not censoring my writings. Maybe someday I will have a change of heart. I wish you the best.

It is over!

Nature Freak said:
Your attitude is why no real conversation can take place at Mediaite. You need to grow up. Andrew would even possibly even agree with me. Brietbart is intelligent but his fanboys could be his downfall. If you want to have an adult conversation with me I am willing, but obviously there are no adults around. Do you know anything about politics? Political Science? history? Law?

Ronald Reagan and his support team you can learn much from. Reagan and I have philosophical differences but I do not doubt his impressive strategic brilliance. Obviously you are clueless. Even Ayn Rand would laugh.

You are not ready for prime time. This is not how the political system works.

If you can not have an adult conversation with me maybe you can direct me to someone who can. I grew up in a political family. My aunt was a mayor of a decent size city. This is not remotely how “realpolitik” works.

You’re repeating yourself. You posted the same long screed three times. And you expect anyone to engage in a serious discussion with you? Plus you’re rambling. Tossing in Reagan and Ayn Rand laughing in my face. Weird. Put down the bong.

insideguy said:
WaterLoo says:Let me just summarize, invading countries is much more reasonable when Obama does it. The current poor US economy is still Bush’s fault. A second Obama term will heal all. No Waterloo that would be simplifying things to much. See that would be like saying that whatever Obama does in both foreign policy and domestic policy is evil and bad, and I know there are no right wingers who would ever say that:)

Yea it’s difficult to find those types of people, they got to be hiding close to those on the left who believe Obama does no wrong;)

Nature Freak said:
I can get more intellectual conversation from Gawker and The New York post and TMZ, and about any news site existing online.

Please end my account Mediaite. Please. i know you mean well but I am getting frustrated. Thank you for not censoring my writings. Maybe someday I will have a change of heart. I wish you the best.

It is over!

“Goodbye Cruel World!” Somehow I don’t believe that. You’ll be back, maybe in a sock puppet incarnation.

insideguy said:
Uhhh No waterloo I just explained the the geopolitical ramifications of Gaddafi wiping out his population in Libya. Now Sadamn was wiping out the kurds after the first Iraq war but apparently Bush the 1st didn’t find that to important. Ohhhhhh wait he did now that I think about it he set up a no fly zone over the north and the south to try and prevent this massacre from happening. Now why would a US president go and do a thing like that? Hmmmm

Right, both interventions were initated to protect civilians from murder. How do you justify one from the other?

I dont Waterloo both are very similar both were the right thing to do. Now the 2nd Bush did not go into Iraq to save the civilians. At least thats not what he stated. Both the no fly zone in Libya and the no fly zone in Iraq were under UN Mandates. The UN did not madate the invasion of Iraq. Now even if they had it has been proven that the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq has been proven false. But you seem to be arguing against the Libyan operation. I am not arguing against the subsequent no Fly zone after the first gulf war. It was fine with me. I guess the real question would be if you were for the no fly zone in Iraq why would you be against the no fly zone in Libya?

Just read through the comments again.

Anyone that has the SLIGHTEST bit of honesty knows for a FACT that hypocrisy is many of the Democrats middle name when it comes to this situation. Remember, there is a BIPARTISAN call for this.

There is only two options with commenters defending the indefensible in this article.

One, you are pathological liars.
Two, you are idiots.

So which one is it?

MEDIAITE, PLEASE CANCEL MY ACCOUNT! THIS IS NOT THE HOTEL CALIFORNIA (I HOPE TO GOD)!

insideguy said:
I dont Waterloo both are very similar both were the right thing to do. Now the 2nd Bush did not go into Iraq to save the civilians. At least thats not what he stated. Both the no fly zone in Libya and the no fly zone in Iraq were under UN Mandates. The UN did not madate the invasion of Iraq. Now even if they had it has been proven that the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq has been proven false. But you seem to be arguing against the Libyan operation. I am not arguing against the subsequent no Fly zone after the first gulf war. It was fine with me. I guess the real question would be if you were for the no fly zone in Iraq why would you be against the no fly zone in Libya?

Bush didn’t go into Iraq to save civilians? Well I tell you, that’s news to me. Unless you want to kid yourself, both invasions were started to save civilians. And, to set the record straight (because you’re putting words in my mouth), I am not arguing against the Libyan operation. The question is how can you justify the Libyan invasion and not Iraq.

WaterLoo said:
Bush didn’t go into Iraq to save civilians? Well I tell you, that’s news to me. Unless you want to kid yourself, both invasions were started to save civilians. And, to set the record straight (because you’re putting words in my mouth), I am not arguing against the Libyan operation. The question is how can you justify the Libyan invasion and not Iraq.

Your circular references and spinning is tiresome. It’s called a double standard. Sheo Smith is right. Not to mention Obama has intervened without congressional approval. If Bush would have tried to pull the same thing the LEFT would be calling for his immediate resignation.

You can attempt to spin the argument that the Iraq war had the wrong message (there were no WMD’s). The fact is both Guadaffi and Saddam are/were murderers, both were initiated to stop these men. One cannot be justified without the other.

Because the premise of the 2nd iraq war was not to save the Iraqi people Waterloo. His reason and what he sold to the citizens of the united states were to stop him from building and using weapons of mass destruction, and to eliminate any terrorist who may be in the country. The reason was not to save civilians from Sadam Hussein. Its really that simple. He sold us on the fact that Sadam had weapons of Mass destruction then told us that the war would be over in 6 weeks or 6 months( chenny quote). Now you are trying to compare these military interventions which is ridiculous. We have lost nearly 5,000 men in Iraq and probably upwards of 30,000 wounded, with no end in sight. Not one US casualty has happened in Libya they are not comparable. But you keep on trying to compare them its ridiculous.

Hotel California lyrics

On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night

There she stood in the doorway, I heard the mission bell
Then I was thinking to myself this could be Heaven or this could be Hell
Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor I thought I heard them say

“Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place
(Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year
(Any time of year)
You can find it here”

Her mind is Tiffany twisted, she got the Mercedes Benz
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys that she calls friends
How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget

So I called up the captain, “Please bring me my wine”
He said, “We haven’t had that spirit here since 1969″
And still those voices are calling from far away
Wake you up in the middle of the night just to hear them say

“Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place
(Such a lovely place)
Such a lovely face
They’re living it up at the Hotel California
What a nice surprise
(What a nice surprise)
Bring your alibis”

Mirrors on the ceiling, the pink champagne on ice
And she said, “We are all just prisoners here of our own device”
And in the master’s chambers they gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives but they just can’t kill the beast

Last thing I remember I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
“Relax,” said the night man, “We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave”

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE INTERNATIONALE

Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don’t cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all

Chorus:
So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We’ll live together or we’ll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We’ve but one earth on which to live

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above

Words: billy bragg music: pierre degeyter

Can you scream from the mountaintops the one word best describing today’s (Democratic) Mainstream Media?

It’s not bald-faced bias (for you Democrats, that’s 3 words); it’s not the industry-coined, “JournOlists”; no, it’s simply:

HYPOCRISY!

NORBIT Jr. said:
Can you scream from the mountaintops the one word best describing today’s (Democratic) Mainstream Media? It’s not bald-faced bias (for you Democrats, that’s 3 words); it’s not the industry-coined, “JournOlists”; no, it’s simply: HYPOCRISY!

I would have chose EMBARRASSING!

Dim Libs would happily rationalize Obamo’s murder of a small child, we will all agree. If they’re going to breast-feed him, they’ll defend the indefensible. Everything ‘Bad’ is instantly ‘Good’ if committed by the big-eared cigarette smoker.

ChrisNH said:
Dim Libs would happily rationalize Obamo’s murder of a small child, we will all agree. If they’re going to breast-feed him, they’ll defend the indefensible. Everything ‘Bad’ is instantly ‘Good’ if committed by the big-eared cigarette smoker.

It would be similar to the Weiner defense: They have no morals or values so they can do no wrong, killing or cheating. It’s just honest liberalism. The type of stuff they had to hide for decades. But now maybe with such “audacity” in charge, the let their guard down and are openly stating such beliefs. A mistake that will cost them dearly but rightfully so.

Nature Freak said:
Please end my account Mediaite. Please. i know you mean well but I am getting frustrated. Thank you for not censoring my writings. Maybe someday I will have a change of heart. I wish you the best.

It is over!

So how did that, “I’m going to try to have a serious discussion” work for you? No so good, I see. Bummer. It looks like you almost considered actually trying!

Of course, we’re back to square one, again. Now that you’re flooded the site with spam, it’s THEIR responsibility to remove you… not for you to remove yourself. If you don’t like the conversation here, go away. You’re not required to type “Mediaite” into the address bar.

Take some responsibility, man. Don’t make others do everything for you. Do it yourself!

insideguy said:
The reason was not to save civilians from Sadam Hussein. Its really that simple.

That simple? Only because you want it to be. The reasons were clearly defined by Congress in the AUMF, remember that little thing that was crafted by Tom Daschle’s Senate and Hastert’s House, agreed upon and passed? thereby authorizing President Bush to go to war.

It did include protecting the Iraqi citizens as well as repatriating Kuwaiti prisoners, reparations, returning our downed pilot from the first Iraq war, etc. and upholding all United Nations resolutions that were brought against Saddam, terrorizing and abusing his citizens were included in those resolutions.

It was Colin Powell that scrapped a presentation to the United Nations that was to take two or three days that covered each and everyone of the resolutions. Colin Powell chose to go to the CIA, pour over everything they had, took him four days, HE made the decision to focus on WMD because HE felt allies were more likely to support the resolutions regarding the WMD because of the intel. Others in the Bush Administration opposed that, Powell won out.

Here’s the AUMF, scroll down to “Reports to Congress” and read through what Congress expected of Bush and compare that to what Obama is doing while defying the War Powers portion of our Constitution.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Really that simple? Not so much.

lillyluminatus said:
Like the Iraq war, which the President has almost drawn to a close?

No, like the Iraq war that the Iraq Status of Forces Agreement that was agreed to in December, 2008. The agreement candidate Obama attempted to interfere with.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqsofa.htm

insideguy said:
Because the premise of the 2nd iraq war was not to save the Iraqi people Waterloo. His reason and what he sold to the citizens of the united states were to stop him from building and using weapons of mass destruction, and to eliminate any terrorist who may be in the country. The reason was not to save civilians from Sadam Hussein. Its really that simple. He sold us on the fact that Sadam had weapons of Mass destruction then told us that the war would be over in 6 weeks or 6 months( chenny quote). Now you are trying to compare these military interventions which is ridiculous. We have lost nearly 5,000 men in Iraq and probably upwards of 30,000 wounded, with no end in sight. Not one US casualty has happened in Libya they are not comparable. But you keep on trying to compare them its ridiculous.

“What he ‘sold’ to the citizens of the US?”

If your “sold” is sarcasm for lying, i’ll just remind you most of the world including all the democrats agreed. The only difference was that Bush had the courage to take action against what EVERYONE saw as a threat.

Your stated reasons are correct, but saving those people was an easy throw in considering Saddams truly satanical history. It was no where near a lie to say we would be saving their people from Saddam.

Cheney was right. When he said that at that time, he was referring to the conventional part of the war. You know, when our army and our allies were lined up against their army, starting at the national boarders? Thats when the media was talking about 60,000 dead and all that? Remember? Well that war took 3 weeks.

Whats been happening since has been clearly refered to as a “war,” But it’s clearly building up a government while fighting an insurgency. Clearly not the same as the conventional war that Cheney was talking about.

And you whine about 5000 dead? Do you realize what a small number that is in the comparison of wars? And that no one has died yet in Lybia is irrelevant to the legitimate gripe against the war, that we are conducting an act of war, period!

Are you delerious to act otherwise or you dont see this? That would be like saying if be somehow could have accomplished the same goals in Iraq but without death to our soldiers that you would have been cool with it? Yeah, I know!

Steve_27 said:
“What he ’sold’ to the citizens of the US?” If your “sold” is sarcasm for lying, i’ll just remind you most of the world including all the democrats agreed. The only difference was that Bush had the courage to take action against what EVERYONE saw as a threat. Your stated reasons are correct, but saving those people was an easy throw in considering Saddams truly satanical history. It was no where near a lie to say we would be saving their people from Saddam. Cheney was right. When he said that at that time, he was referring to the conventional part of the war. You know, when our army and our allies were lined up against their army, starting at the national boarders? Thats when the media was talking about 60,000 dead and all that? Remember? Well that war took 3 weeks. Whats been happening since has been clearly refered to as a “war,” But it’s clearly building up a government while fighting an insurgency. Clearly not the same as the conventional war that Cheney was talking about. And you whine about 5000 dead? Do you realize what a small number that is in the comparison of wars? And that no one has died yet in Lybia is irrelevant to the legitimate gripe against the war, that we are conducting an act of war, period! Are you delerious to act otherwise or you dont see this? That would be like saying if be somehow could have accomplished the same goals in Iraq but without death to our soldiers that you would have been cool with it? Yeah, I know!

Sorry, “if “we” somehow….”

Nacho said:
The Libya “conflict” is a human rights campaign launched by NATO. If anything, it’s more an European “conflict” than Obummer’s. To call it Obozo’s war is ridiculous.

Nato took command of northern areas of Afghanistan in 2003 and complete control of Afghanistan in 2006 but, it was still Bush’s war, correct?

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp081203.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-05-afghanistan-nato_x.htm

insideguy said:
felixw says:

Felix your argument is foolish. Obama never said there were weapons of mass destruction in Libya. He and NATO stated that the primary reason for the Libyan involvement was to prevent civilians from being massacred. Now maybe it would have been ok with you if this had taken place. . See Felix this is a big bad world. There are other countries in this world besides the USA. France and England and the rest of Europe have major security and energy issues tied to Libya. If Gaddafi starts to wipe out people in mass that means bad news for europe as a huge influx of refugees would flood over into Italy France and Spain. These people are our allies. They are in NATO the same as we are. If they become overwhelmed by refugees that affects their already fragile economies which in turn affects our fragile economy. That is why we are involved and its a good reason to be involved. Bushs reason for going into Iraq may have been to remove Sadamn Hussein but that is not what he stated. He and his crew warned us of an impending mushroom cloud over a major US city if something was not done. It turns out that there was no nuclear program to speak of in Iraq and thats a fact.

Don’t you love watching liberals dance as they explain why it’s okay to bomb Libya but it was EVIL and WRONG to take out Saddam Hussein? I feel sorry for them. They voted for an anti-war candidate, and he is now operating in three separate war fronts, while also sending troops into a fourth country. It’s a pretty silly-looking dance, but these seem to be the only steps they know.

Whatever Felix ive tried to explain to you that Obama is and was not anti-war. Im not antiwar. Im anti dumb war as you should be to. But you either are to stupid to understand that argument or just plain ignore my point. Either way its is not interesting nor constructive to debate with you so im done.

insideguy said:
Whatever Felix ive tried to explain to you that Obama is and was not anti-war.

Well, duh, everyone can now see that Obama is not anti-war. He likes flexing his military might when he is the one dropping the bombs. But the fact remains that his policies represent a total flip-flop from the positions he adopted when running for President.

As you may recall, Obama took the nomination by consistently coming out as more anti-war than Hilary Clinton. He denounced the Iraq military operation (troops are still there). He denounced Guantanamo (it’s still open). He denounced the Patriot Act (he now asks for even longer extensions of it than the Republicans wanted). And he has added a new war front in Libya, on pretexts that are identical to those he opposed as a candidate.

Here is what Obama the candidate said.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Try to reconcile that statement with what Obama is doing right now in Libya. Here, I’ll save you the trouble: it can’t be reconciled. No kind of way.

And you agree with the Iraq war, Gitmo and the patriot act, and apparently agree with the libyan operation. So what are you complaining about? Ive already told you presidents make who campaign make promises that they cant keep its that simple. Presidents on both sides do this(see read my lips no new taxes). Now if you are complaining that the left is not critical enough of Obama on things that he promised then go to a left wing blog and you will see plenty of criticism. The left like the right is going to back its candidate warts and all. If Romney is your candidate during the 2012 campaign the right is going to have to look past his faults and his flip-flops just like the left does Obamas. Im not really clear where you are going with this.

I did. I told everyone who would listen that this is exactly what would happen. There is no difference between Bush, Clinton, Bush or O Bama. The questions i have for you are: what is wrong with socialism (democracy itself is a socialistic principle) and are you daft enough to believe Cain will do things any different?