September 13, 2012

We have always been at war with Libya!

I realize the national conversation isn't supposed to be about the Commander-in-Chief's strategic decision-making, but I want to peer back deep into the mists of time to March 17, 2011 when I was idly browsing on the Internet only to discover that, with negligible public discussion, much less a Congressional declaration of war, President Obama had launched America into a war with a country that had been considered one of the success stories of recent American diplomacy. In puzzlement, I blogged:
Are We at War with Libya? 
In theory, this shouldn't be all that hard to blast Gadaffi's air force and tanks in open desert. There's a difference between a land war in Asia and a land war in North Africa. We already won one of those 68 years ago, against a better general than anybody working for Gadaffi. 
But, then what happens? I don't know.

I still don't know.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming: Let's Talk About How Mitt Romney Is a Big Doo-Doo Head Instead.

Forty-five years ago, Romeny's dad, a leading GOP candidate for the 1968 Presidential nomination, came out against the Vietnam War. When asked why he had supported it after returning from a quick visit in 1965, he said he'd been "brainwashed" by the diplomats and generals. This proved the end of his White House hopes. His son drew the lesson that caution in the face of the Establishment was crucial. 

The problem we face on foreign policy is the Establishment monoculture in Washington: in the run-up and follow-up to the Iraq War, many of the sensible people were purged and the loonies rewarded.

Obama is one of the few to benefit from being right: he gave one speech against the Iraq War and got the White House. Howard Dean gave a hundred speeches and got a life of leisure. Hillary Clinton was for the war and got to be Secretary of State.

Today, the acceptable limits of foreign policy discourse in America are set by: 

- The good old military-industrial complex
- Saudi bribery
- Liberal Democratic Zionists
- Right 2 Protect liberal crypto-imperialist/busybodies
- Angry Likudniks
- Quasi-CIA "democracy" endowments that organize color-coded revolutions
- Foreign policy thinktanks (who are more important the more activist the foreign policy)
- White guys who need to serve in the military so they can get affirmative action points to become firemen
- Yahoos who should be apprised that when football isn't on TV, professional wrestling can always be found year-round, so there's no need to watch the news
- Oil companies (who are left to quietly play the "Can't we all just get along?" Rodney King role)

They are all overseen by a national media that sometimes seems most concerned about the looming threat that an isolationist Father Coughlin could arise again.

So, the only feasible foreign policy alternative to stake out is: "The President's foreign policy isn't quite crazed enough!"

56 comments:

IHTG said...

I wonder what would have happened if Obama had been president during the 1956 Sinai campaign.

anony-mouse said...

Let's see now:

The isolationists' favourite President Thomas Jefferson attacked Libya (to the shores of Tripoli) in the Barbary Wars followed by Madison and Monroe.

Teddy sent the Marines to Libya to rescue a kidnapped American.

His cousin Franklin had US troops move through Libya on their way to Italy.

Reagan bombed Qadaffi.

Obama removed Qadaffi.

'We have always been at war with Libya!'

Sounds about right. Where do you think you're wrong?

Anonymous said...

The madness will end soon...

JustAClown said...

quite right as to the prime movers behind the constant state of war. But aren't you afraid of getting labeled as a conspiracy theorist?

Anonymous said...

The sarcasm is so thick that I am not sure what your are talking about. I am guessing that you are reiterating your isolationism, and I agree that we should leave the middle east soonest. i don't swallow the the whole paleocon isolationist world view however. A top shelf bluewater navy with a full complement of airforce hardware and soldiers/marines, all kept close to home should do the trick.

Anonymous said...

"Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming: Let's Talk About How Mitt Romney Is a Big Doo-Doo Head Instead."

Don't forget: How This is All Some Small Time Assholes' Fault Because of That Film or something.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I think it is your memory that is growing convenient. Remember that math exercise where each step in the chain is 90% likely, but after a very few steps, the whole conclusion is quite unlikely? .9 x .9 x .9...

All of you contentions have to hold up for your conclusions to hold. It weakens rapidly.

Being against war in Iraq or Afghanistan is not a single thing. The question then became "What do you propose to do instead?" I am entirely comfortable with the claim that we paid far too dearly for what we got in return, but we have indeed not been attacked until Obama screwed up these later Middle-eastern interventions. However frustrating you may find "Zionists," it remains true that they are far less crazed than others in the region. I am not seeing an advantage to having no allies in any region. To claim that the cost is too high is certainly fair, but that still evades the "what does one plan to do instead?" question. When extremists attack and Saddam is flouting surrender agreements, the US will eventually do something (or nothing), and that something (or nothing) will have consequences. There are only tradeoffs in the Middle-east, not reasonable plans. We have not had complete meltdown and Iraq is a better place. Was that worth it? I doubt it, but it's not nothing.

Therefore, the idea that Obama and Dean were "right" is quite a stretch. Obama favored more engagement with Insane people. I'm not seeing how that guarantees a better outcome, and think it very likely to produce a worse one.

The question always is "Compared to what?"

Anonymous said...

Vis a vis the current chimpouts in the middle east.

If humans have gene-culture coevolution then cultural manipulation becomes a potential avenue for free-riding behavior and parasitism - greatly magnified with the invention of mass media.

I think Islam can be seen as a kind of vaccination against this kind of cultural manipulation.

There is a massive downside in that the same rigidity that protects against cultural manipulation leads to stagnation but there is a cost-benefit calculation involved under the surface imo.

The ideal would be a culture that was immune to external manipulation but also flexible enough to adapt - not easy.

"The isolationists' favourite President Thomas Jefferson attacked Libya (to the shores of Tripoli) in the Barbary Wars followed by Madison and Monroe."

A lot of empires start as a response to raiders and slave-raiders. The oldest battle-honor in the British Army is for Tangiers in a campaign against the Barbary pirates.

Anonymous said...

If(more like when) Romney loses, the establishment will be looking for people to blame... and they will ridiculously come down hard on soc-cons and immigration restrictionists. After Akin, soc-cons do deserve some blame for taking unworkable positions when it comes to rape and abortion but the biggest reason for Romney losing is that he's hasn't broken from Bush on foreign policy. People associate Republican hawkishness with pointless indebting austerity and sacrifice for people who hate us.

Romney's main problem is that the kind of belligerent posturing that's common among the GOP foreign policy establishment is only acceptable from non-white people. Condi and Rubio(barely) get away with it but Romney has absolutely no leeway. There is no future in American hawkish foreign policy with a white face. Obama isn't so bad from the imperalist perspective and he's more effective for true neo-imperialists because he is black.

I hope someone like Rand Paul stands up to these people after the election.

Anonymous said...

Anony-mouse - pretty well all of those wars/raids on Libya were clear cut affairs. Whats happening now (whatever that is) seems to be different. Regime change, nation building etc

Anonymous said...

Actually

"The ideal would be a culture that was immune to external manipulation but also flexible enough to adapt - not easy."

The ideal would be a culture that as well as being adaptive in itself *wasn't* immune to benign external manipulation but was immune to malign external manipulation - so even less easy.

Ann said...

Right to Protect proponent Anne-Marie Slaughter certainly is a liberal imperialist busybody, but she wants to EU to rule the world and is very much a typical self-righteous elitist. She openly advocated the EU take all of the European nations seats on the UN Security Council.

She was for the Iraq War...until she found out her favored European nations were against it.

Anonymous said...

anony-mouse:"The isolationists' favourite President Thomas Jefferson attacked Libya (to the shores of Tripoli) in the Barbary Wars followed by Madison and Monroe."

Jefferson is the "isolationists' favourite president?" Seems like an odd pick.


"Teddy sent the Marines to Libya to rescue a kidnapped American."

Incorrect. The Perdicaris Incident was in Morocco.

Auntie Analogue said...

Mr. Sailer your précis is pretty accurate, except it omits to tell that what powers U.S. belligerence is emoition-driven ideology - not coldly calculated strategy. God forbid that any of our high-and-mighty should actually, you know, THINK! Last big guy we had of that caliber was Ike, and even he had his blind spots, but at least he put the kibosh on the mil-industry loons who wanted to nuke the Viet Minh around Dienbienphu, and he also jerked the rug out from under Eden and the French in their brainless Suez adventure.

Actually, "We Have Always Been At War With Libya" is but a fragment of the reality, which is that Islam has always been at war with infidels - whether, or not, we infidels have leaders wise enough to face and admit that fact. It used to be local Moslem potentates, greedy for lucre, who raided European shores for slaves and plunder, and whose pirates attacked Western ships on the high seas; but now Islam's top bananas are holding a huge lot of cash their forebears never held, so now they fund global "non-state" - or "asymmetric" if you prefer Pentagonspeak - Islamic piracy and shakedown operations.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:11pm

I don't know that Akin took an entirely unworkable position. Last I checked, he's maintaining position in a very tight two-way race in swing-state Missouri.

Whiskey said...

Steve, not one of your finer moments. Its like Pat Buchanon. Come home ... from what? California? New York City?

THe riots were ostensibly over some film seen by fewer than 6K on Youtube. In reality it was ginned up by the Muslim Brotherhood which wants to free the Blind Sheikh. Come home from what? New York City? After all the Blind Sheikh is in jail for plotting to blow up the WTC and bridges and subways. Morsi let out Zawahari's brother, to gin up more Jihad. In case you forget, Zawahari leads AQ now.

America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that.

Re Libya. If we thought Khadaffi was likely to win or most likely to win, we should have helped him, making him owe us. If we thought we could keep him in, even better. Libyan real estate is valuable and has been since Carthage. If we thought Khadaffi was most likely to lose, we should have removed him ourselves and put in a proper puppet. Again, Libya is valuable real estate. Shoreline on the Med does not just happen. The worst possible outcome is to do a very minimal "leading from behind" because you're afraid it will look bad on TV and allow the worst jihadists to take power.

Its time for straight talk, and honesty, in foreign policy as in race. America is not going to be isolationist any more than it can go back to being a colony of the mighty British Empire. That means periodic wars against Muslims in particular to control oil and vital sea lanes. No one cares that say, Mali amputates limbs for thievery, by Islamic law. Mali is not important. Places like the Gulf and Med are however.

We have this fantasy, mostly driven by White women, but also by non-Whites who hate the US military and success, that somehow we can just be "nice" to people and avoid conflict. We don't see that in private life -- your nice safe suburb exists only because police will use force to keep mobs of looters from NAM inner ring suburbs or cities out.

Human nature has not changed. America needs cheap oil and free shipping lanes. That means military force and killing enemies, often and mostly Muslims. And our own blood and treasure spilt. It does not come cheap, any more than you can get in shape sitting on the couch eating chocolate cake. That means a big military, strong action, and deterrence to keep small threats from growing into big ones. No nation or people EVER in history won and kept their freedom from bondage by being "nice."

Anything else is a fantasy akin to all peoples and races having the same innate abilities.

Anonymous said...

A top shelf bluewater navy with a full complement of airforce hardware and soldiers/marines, all kept close to home should do the trick.


What trick is that, exactly? If we're going to have a bloated military, people are going to find things abroad to do with it.

Anonymous said...

Being against war in Iraq or Afghanistan is not a single thing.


Not sure how you're injecting Afghanistan into this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Romney's main problem is that the kind of belligerent posturing that's common among the GOP foreign policy establishment is only acceptable from non-white people. Condi and Rubio(barely) get away with it but Romney has absolutely no leeway. There is no future in American hawkish foreign policy with a white face. Obama isn't so bad from the imperalist perspective and he's more effective for true neo-imperialists because he is black



What a pathetic bigot you are. It's as if the left no longer feels the need to even pretend to hide its anti-white hostility.

Anonymous said...

Franklin had US troops move through Libya on their way to Italy


And he had US troops move through Britain and France on their way to Germany! Plus, we were at war with Britain in 1812 - so we've always been at war with Britain!

That makes as much sense as anything which "anony-mouse" came out with.

NOTA said...

Assistant:

Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? As far as I can tell, our invasion of Iraq was a monumental waste of money and lives and a huge bloodbath, which yielded us nothing. Worse, it's hard for me to see how it ever could have yielded us anything. It was a clusterfuck from beginning to end, and yet the price of admission to being considered a serious foreign policy thinker in the media is pretty much that you went along with the Iraq war.

I don't know what we should have done in Afghanistan. Occupying the place for a decade can hardly have been the best choice for us, but I don't know what would have been. But at least invading Afghanistan made some kind of sense--the people who attacked us on 9/11 had their leadership hiding out there.

Anonymous said...

Uhh, uhm, ahh, isn't anyone going to point out that, uhh, in an interview last night, President SuperGenius didn't know that, uhh, well, yeah, uhm, Egypt actually IS an ally of ours.

I guess maybe he and the Choom Gang just toked their way right past that whole Camp David commotion - whatever the hell it was supposed to have been about.

Pass the Doobie, man, pass the Doobie.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that.

Here is where you consistently fall down on your face. If America can never come home, then America will cease to exist.

Anonymous said...

"America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that."

Even by Whiskey standards, this is a non-sequitur of doozyistic proportions.

How, pray, are the aforesaid 'claimants' going to exert effective force at a distance? And Father Coughlin would brook no fifth, sixth or seventh columns.

Gilbert P.

Anonymous said...

"
What a pathetic bigot you are. It's as if the left no longer feels the need to even pretend to hide its anti-white hostility."

Hey moron, I'm describing not prescribing the situation. The age of a white guy heading a hawkish foreign policy. You abuse it, you lose it. It could have been saved by making a clean break from the past and coming back to it after someone picks a fight, but I think that it is over forever because it's just a constant drumbeat of aggressive nonsense that people won't forget.

"I don't know that Akin took an entirely unworkable position. Last I checked, he's maintaining position in a very tight two-way race in swing-state Missouri."

No he isn't. Akin is a fool who has put the 2nd to the final nail in the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement will be finished when safe pre-natal testing comes out by the end of the decade.

Anonymous said...

" White guys who need to serve in the military so they can get affirmative action points to become firemen"

Actually it is all government jobs. W was kind enough to great whole new bureaucracies to staff.

So Steve why are these white people filling government bureaucracies less of a problem for taxpayers than Hispanic immigrants?

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, I've always enjoyed your comments on Roissy's and Sailer's blog, but boy are you way off on this one. The USA is nearly bankrupt and won't be able to afford being the world police whether neocons like Bill Kristol or John Bolton like it or not. A 3rd rate economy doesn't fund a 1st rate military.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

So Steve why are these white people filling government bureaucracies less of a problem for taxpayers than Hispanic immigrants?

It's not. The welfare state is not sustainable. But in the meantime, there are certain people I'd rather have staffing the DMV than others.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Anony-mouse - pretty well all of those wars/raids on Libya were clear cut affairs. Whats happening now (whatever that is) seems to be different. Regime change, nation building etc."

Quagmire building.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

A top shelf bluewater navy....."

Soon to be equipped with unisex, coed aircraft carriers and missile submarines.

Mr. Anon said...

"The Anti-Gnostic said...

""America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that.""

Here is where you consistently fall down on your face. If America can never come home, then America will cease to exist."

Apparently, the existence or non-existence of America isn't one of Whiskey's concerns. It's all good for him, as long as we're bombing some brown people somewhere.

Anonymous said...

America is simply going to repudiate its debt, either directly, or (more likely) indirectly.

Obama can keep this debt thing going for at least another 4 years (if we let him).

Having the biggest military means you can repudiate your debt. This is one of the main reasons to have the military.

The only question is when the creditors will finally figure it out. I think the Chinese already know, deep in their dyspeptic innards,that they will never be repaid properly.

QE3 is part of the repudiation.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Hey moron, I'm describing not prescribing the situation. The age of a white guy heading a hawkish foreign policy.


Hey moron, you're not describing the situation. What we have is a black guy heading a hawkish foreign policy. Welcome to the real world.

Ray Sawhill said...

Hilarious posting.

Anonymous said...

I just saw replayed Obama's address in Cairo of a few years ago, 2009, I believe.

His narcissism (or his naivete) were on full display. It's clear he believed that his "force" of personality aided by his life's narrative as a "young boy in Indonesia" would somehow make Muslims in the Arab world fall under some kind of spell.

Were I Romney's team, I'd splice together all the bloated, pompous, narcissistic speeches he's delivered and tack on the end of each the results of his bloviating.

Anonymous said...

"Hey moron, you're not describing the situation. What we have is a black guy heading a hawkish foreign policy. Welcome to the real world."

You really are an idiot... you should have been able to infer the "IS OVER" in the "The age of a white guy heading a hawkish foreign policy" left off in the editing considering the complete context and the fact that it was a sentence fragment.

I had already said this.

"Obama isn't so bad from the imperalist perspective and he's more effective for true neo-imperialists because he is black."

I am describing the situation. People like Mitt Romney can't be foreign policy hawks anymore without hiding it.

Anonymous said...

BTW, there is a brilliant article on VDARE about how Axelrod and Obama may have purposely snubbed Bibi in order to inflame Romney which in turn would turn off war weary peoples... especially whites.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/obama-snubs-netanyahu-to-make-romney-the-bloodshed-candidate

deconstructingleftism said...

I hate paleocons even more than antifas. If you're an antifa at least maybe you are getting sex from some homely girl out of it.

Anonymous said...

"So Steve why are these white people filling government bureaucracies less of a problem for taxpayers than Hispanic immigrants?"

Apart from a million other reasons, simple arithmetic.

Option A)
One job
One citizen
One immigrant

Option B)
One job
One citizen
No immigrant

Easy peasy.

Kevin B said...

Having the biggest military means you can repudiate your debt.

Not really. The Fed owns $6.328 trillion of the $16.4 trillion of on the books federal government debt. The Chinese are a distant second with about $1 trillion and they're unloading fast. So the military isn't going to help out with the 1st mortgage holder and the second is already getting out of the game. Of more importance, the total obligated liabilities for the country are north of $211 Trillion http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion

Doing some back of the envelope calcs shows an amount that cannot possibly be paid back by those in the workforce.

So we're truly hosed and no military, ours or combined with anyone else, is going to be able to prevent a collapse.

All this Kabuki theater over the mid-east is just part of an endless stream of national entertainment moments. Call it "Entertainment 21st" as we patiently wait for the tipping point to arrive.

Anonymous said...

"I hate paleocons even more than antifas. If you're an antifa at least maybe you are getting sex from some homely girl out of it."

You get to be cuckolded while you're out fighting your holy war.

The war is at home... not abroad.

Anonymous said...

Well said!!!

The key to American foreign policy (at least in the middle east, the region that threatens Armaggeddon at the turn of a hair), is the zionist lobby and their absolute, complete and total stranglehold over the US government (which is, of course, cash mediated through dirty politicians) - hence the USA is drawn into an imbroglio in a region that, historically, has nothing whatsoever to do with America.
- Despite your incessant lambasting of Obama, Obama has recently done the unthinkable, and shown a bit of backbone against Netyanhu's demands and dictates.

Anonymous said...

It's not about Romney 'being a doo-doo head' (as you so succinctly put it). But my rantings were really about how the Repugnant Party is rotten to the core, being the twin cheek of the malodorous, dirty ass with the Democrat Party completing the twinset. And, by golly, they deserve to be lambasted - in essence they are a whole owned subsidiary, a corporate whores of their paymasters, the 1% - all they do is act *solely and wholly* in the self-interest of their owners and damn the rest.
You know the rest of my spiel, nasty little social climbers in the GOP dazzled by fabulous wealth and thus identifying with their patrons so that the glory rubs off on them, the porn star 'sessions' etc etc.
Anyway, Romney seems a decent enough fellow (he doesn't look like a obvious putz like Reagan or Georgie W.), the grey temples lend an alpha chimp like 'gravitas' and 'presence' to the man. Full marks to the barber for his prowess with the tinting.

Anonymous said...

Uhh, uhm, ahh, isn't anyone going to point out that, uhh, in an interview last night, President SuperGenius didn't know that, uhh, well, yeah, uhm, Egypt actually IS an ally of ours. I guess maybe he and the Choom Gang just toked their way right past that whole Camp David commotion - whatever the hell it was supposed to have been about. Pass the Doobie, man, pass the Doobie.

RUH-ROH: Jimmah emerges from the nursing home so as to administer a little ass-whuppin'.

Drunk Idiot said...

The isteve stuff on the Libya ... err, affair (war?) from 2011 was top notch. Sure, it was a little surprising to see a country that supposedly put Obama in office to end American Wars in the Middle East yawn collectively over American involvement, opaque though it may have been (leading the charge? just along for the ride? no war and no boots on the ground? guns blazing? leading from behind? kicking ass and taking names?), in the Libya .... er, not-war thingy (war).

But so what! We've got Barack, and he's freakin' badass!!!

Totally. Pwn3d. Khadaffy.

'Specially when Kdaffy got corn-holed with that Kalashnakov bayonet!!!

w00t!!!

We gotta keep going forward!!! We can't let Romney and his people roll back all the progress Barack has made and take us back to the 1950s-style dark days of waging immoral wars, trashing the Constitution and operating a police state that spies on its own citizens. Took Obama 4 years to dig us outta that ditch. Gotta put the car in "D", not in "R" (ya know, like as in "DRIVE forward)!!! LOL!!!

Anyhoo, since we're going back to Libya and 2011, its always a good idea to go back and brush up on some of the reasons why the thing we did in Libya ruled and why Obama is awesome.

Bill said...


Whiskey said . . .
America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that.

We can escape it by coming home, and not letting the loonies in. Simple as that. No student visas for flight school = no 9/11.

Anonymous said...

in essence they are a whole owned subsidiary, a corporate whores of their paymasters, the 1% - all they do is act *solely and wholly* in the self-interest of their owners and damn the rest.
You know the rest of my spiel




I sure do. But it's still a stupid spiel. The corporate whores of the one percent remains the Democratic Party. Except in those cases - Corzine, Soros, Bing, etc - where they literally ARE the one percent.

Dahlia said...

"Anonymous said...

I just saw replayed Obama's address in Cairo of a few years ago, 2009, I believe.

His narcissism (or his naivete) were on full display. It's clear he believed that his "force" of personality aided by his life's narrative as a "young boy in Indonesia" would somehow make Muslims in the Arab world fall under some kind of spell.

Were I Romney's team, I'd splice together all the bloated, pompous, narcissistic speeches he's delivered and tack on the end of each the results of his bloviating."

Second. This episode illustrates something Douthat said about Romney being too close to Bush: while he isn't the neocon hawk that the other Republicans in the primary were, except Ron Paul of course, he didn't give a full-throated repudiation of why you don't kill our ALLIES.

As such, the best he can do is "stand up for free speech", but let foreigners such as Putin and European conservatives take the lead.

Luckily for him, the logical consequences of Obama's and European liberals' actions are playing out just in time: sit back and watch the implosion.

Anonymous said...

I am describing the situation. People like Mitt Romney can't be foreign policy hawks anymore without hiding it.


You are describing your own biases, your own hopes and dreams, not providing some blindingly brilliant insight into the nature of things.

NOTA said...

How the initial story got almost everything wrong Apparently, the filmmaker wasn't anything like he claimed to be (he's a Coptic Christian conman, not an Israeli Jew), the protests and attacks on the embassy were planned long ahead for 9/11 (shockingly, most people don't bring mortars and rocket launchers to protests, even ones against really amateur Youtube videos).

This has echoes of the Zimmerman/Martin case, where Zimmerman was a big fat racist white guy who stalked a little black kid into a corner and then murdered him, until it turned out he was a little hispanic guy with no particular indication of being a racist who followed a big black kid around his neighborhood, somehow got into a fight with him, and was getting his ass kicked when he shot him

In both cases, the media ran with an initial story that was complete bullshit. In this case, they dug deeper faster, perhaps because the story seemed more important, perhaps because foreign media would get the story right if they didn't.

The lesson here is: Next time a story like this comes out, you should assume all the details are wrong up front. Especially, when it makes a good story, you should wonder how much hammering into shape it needed to make that good a story.

preezy said...

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. This Libya thing is different, my grandfather signed up the day after Pearl Harbor to fight in Libya.

Anonymous said...

Prince Harry is having a hard time in Camp Bastion... Taliban incoming!!!

Anonymous said...

We should DISCONNECT from the Islamic world. They don't get in. We stay away from their countries. Problem solved.

Beecher Asbury said...

Steve, not one of your finer moments. Its like Pat Buchanon.

I think you mean Pat Buchanan. The guy who has been correct on every issue that you and your neocon allies have flubbed, such as free trade, open borders immigration and the disastrous war in Iraq.

America can NEVER go home, come home, because Islamists claim to tell us how to live, how to work, how to eat, how to marry, what we can eat what we can drink, every aspect of our life. There is no escaping that.

This from the guy who supports the people who push for open borders. Yeah, that sounds smart. Let's keep holding the diversity lotto to award 50K visas annually to nuts from the Mideast.

We have this fantasy, mostly driven by White women...

The only fantasy we hear from you is your peculiar desire to being cuckholded by a NAM.

Rev. Right said...

Are We at War with Libya?"

No! No! A thousand times no! We are at war with You Tube!

Jay Carney, yesterday:

"The reason why there is unrest is because of the film...it is not in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting...This is in response to the film...The cause of the unrest was a video...These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region...This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

Truth said...

"The only fantasy we hear from you is your peculiar desire to being cuckholded by a NAM."

LOL, that's only if he found a wife.