Sunday, March 20, 2011

What Was Once, Still Is

A Dual Post- Adams Patriot & Mark Adams

As it once was, striking at a sovereign nation, for any reason was the lefts battle cry to bring down a President and smear his legacy. 
We all know who that was: Bush
But was this Bush's policy? 
Or an agreed and adapted policy from the former Administration of Bill Clinton?

Answer points to yes.
December 19, 1998 President Clinton speaks to the role of American and British troops fighting to generate Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. The President announces that U.S. policy toward Iraq would seek the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.

And by October 31, 1998 President Clinton signs into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."
The Act was passed 360-38 in the House and by unanimous consent of the Senate.

And so the result: Mission Accomplished.

Now we have a similar:

Gadhafi took control of Libya in 1969 through a military coop, similar to the way most dictators do. Now 42 years later the left refers to him as 'not the legitimate ruler'.

The left says Gadhafi is now killing his own citizens, but he has done that for 42 years now. What other dictator has done that? Saddam Hussein did and the left thought that was a one of many poor reasons to invade Iraq.

The rebels are no different than Gadhafi as they are doing what he did, try to take the country by force.

Isn't Libya, under Gadhafi, a sovereign nation? They are in a civil war, why is that our problem or the UN's? Now we are in this when the rebels are loosing! So we are helping the rebels overthrow their government?

Our President is not on the fore front of this action, but leaves this to lower personnel. The Pentagon said no to this action and then Obama leaves the country before the invasion, does not seek approval by congress, goes against the left ideology on war and the left legitimizes the invasion of libya as being part of a coalition with the UN.
Still Is:

Can you name the Nobel Peace Prize winner who fired 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles?

Is the leftwing and the MSM outraged that their missiah-n-chief is helping liberate a people?

Crickets thus far are loudest on this.

Nothing from the NY Times.

Nor the Washington Post.

Arianna Huffington's Humping-the-post deflects away from Libya and talks about Afghanistan and would-be GOP Presidential contenders.

The biggest Obama lover, MoveOn.Org has said nothing at this point.


AdamsPatriot said...

Does anyone really think that civilians ARE NOT being killed by the US and the coalition?

"Obama lied and people died"

The left won't say it like they did with
GW Bush, so I thought I'd throw that one out there!

Unknown said...

It very unlikely most of them won't scuttle their President, as they did with Americas Presidents before.

Anonymous said...

Well, an interesting piece. It hops around alot and doesn't stay on target but interesting. I have a few questions.

Are you making a case that the US is pursuing regime changes?
That Obama was wrong to join the British and French in following the UN mandate?
You guys just dislike Obama and are critical of everything including how he wipes his butt?

Personally i just see this as an extension of President Reagans policy towards Libya and therefore immune to conservative criticism. I am sure that your old enough to remember the attacks ordered by President Reagan.

But all kidding aside, i think day 2 is a little early to expect any sizable amount of displeasure from anyone yet? Except Conservatives, because they are always displeased with Obama. Personally i have no problem with the No-fly zone under UN mandate terms and the coordinated missile attacks with the British. When it becomes more than just a no-fly zone then you will have my voice of displeasure to ground troops and military action.

AdamsPatriot said...

Wow, Joe being critical of our post, how unusual.

Guess we should have had G W Bush push the button on this bombardment then maybe he would agree with the post.

I mean, lefties are such pacifist and all!

Unknown said...

The post show's a distinct pattern, Joe.

"You guys just dislike Obama and are critical of everything including how he wipes his butt?"
Got nothing to do with Obama but the two faced left and how they, at this point, are silent.
You lefties don't like nation building. You despise the US for meddling in other countries issues... When it's not your guy making the decision.
You'll get the picture in the coming weeks.

And you know that the "UN mandate" doesn't allow for boots on the ground. And it won't. So we can expect you won't show any displeasure then.

Anonymous said...

If we do not put boots on the ground then i am okay with the limited engagement. I can't see why you would be. At day two i don't know what you expect. Your being a little partisan about this when obviously it will be a few days before any major decision by any groups will be announced.

As for the concept of nation building i am unsure of how you came to the conclusion that only the left opposes nation building unless its their president. Any chance you could enlighten me to the long history of anti-nation building during the Iraq war?

In all seriousness i don't assume that this is nation building or regime change. It could end up that way, and that would be bad. If it does i will oppose it.

Anonymous said...

Strangely enough i am not a pacifist. Are You? And i wouldn't oppose Bush using limited engagement in situations like this either. That was not fair to say. I didn't oppose the Afghanistan invasion.

AdamsPatriot said...

Joe, Pacifist comment was sarcasm, the left will speak of a peaceful co-existance but never really show it via actions especially with their current demonstrations in this country and in this case attacking a sovereign country.

This is not the only country that has rose up against their government and the UN and Obama did not do anything for those people.

There are people suffering all over Africa at the hands of tyranny and the UN and Obama has not done anything for them.

But in this case we get into another war (it is a war no matter how long or short that it is) after years of the left screamed to get out of Afganistan and Iraq and our country's financial situtation is so bad.

As we have presented over many posts here that the left is two faced in many respects.

And tell me how this action of lobbing missiles can NOT possibly kill civilians?

This is a civil war between Libyans, who does Obama think he is taking sides and getting involved with a sovereign nation's problems?

BTW, what's wrong with being a Pacifist?

Unknown said...

Never said I was for boots on the ground.
You're missing the point. The left (maybe not you), especially the Anti-war-Bush-lied-people-died ones go silent when one of their own goes in to a military attack mode with coalition forces by getting involved in an other nations internal problems.

"any major decision by any groups will be announced.
It's already been announced by Gates that the US will hand over our leadership roll (even though there never was one by us) to the Brits.

"Any chance you could enlighten me to the long history of anti-nation building during the Iraq war?"
Holy S&%t, Joe. What planet were you on during the Iraq war? You had to have known that the left was screaming the loudest, accusing Bush of Nation building and invading a sovereign nation crap.

Again, what planet have been on the last month or so.
Libyans have been calling for Gaddafi to step down.
Obama has said Gaddafi must go.
France and the league of Arab Nation has also been calling for his step down.

That is a call for regime change, and supporting it by military action can and will be considered nation building.

The over point here is this.
The left screamed the loudest when Bush got us in to a military situation, but falls silent when O' does.

Chris said...

The left-wing hypocricy is amazing isn't it? Joe, do you think you have a double standard, one for us and another standard for you and yours? People remember what Bush went through. Most people voted for Obama to get us out of wars not in more of them. They thought he'd get us out of debt and close Gitmo. They thought he'd make the world love us and wars and unrest around the wolrd stop. People are waking up to this the most inept admin. ever. Just look at the polls. And when people turn on Obama they turn fast and hard.

Anonymous said...

One thing about what you said gives me hope. Its that not just the right is turning on Obama, but many little parts of the liberal big tent are.

See that didn't happen under Bush. The right stood loyal to him no matter what campaign promises he broke. Now he gets called a Rino, but when he went against his anti-nation building platform the right changed its long held stance with him.

When he created the largest government Bureaucracy ever in Homeland Security they joined in. When the most expansive government constitutional trampling happened the right went along with it. Perhaps not the birchers and the militias but the base of what would be become the tea party did.

But the only reason the base called him a Rino is that he bailed out the car companies and thereby their ideological enemies the unions. The other actions which stood in deep contrast to supposedly long held conservative views were rationalized and even promoted.

The same thing is happening today. Instead of being dismayed at the naked power grab that is Governor Snyders EFM plan the right is touting it. Why would the right ever be interested in losing local control of their cities towns and villages? It goes against the core of actual conservative belief. They applaud it, because the desire to weaken the unions is greater than the desire to follow their own beliefs.

So i am not sad that anti-war leftists are dismayed at Obama, or that left wing libertarians/anarchists are upset that Obama is keeping the patriot act and going further in some cases. Thats shows that they actually believe in what they say.

I wish at times the right did.

AdamsPatriot said...

Mark, here ya go! Boots on the ground!