Anyone want to tell me if we should feel guilty over THIS guy being killed?
PAD
55 comments on “K’Daffy a Dead Duck”
Well actually I want to post a long political rant about the left wing conspiracies and that the…
I can’t even type that with a straight face.
.
Nope. No problems here.
.
TAC
At this point, we’re merely trading one set of problems for another with the death of Gaddafi.
I will not tell anyone how to feel.
However, as a pacifist, I will say that I always prefer it to go a different way than a path that involves killing.
Yeah, he was a monster and the world’s a better place without him. But let me spell out the downsides:
.
1) Back in 2003, we cut a tacit deal with him: he fesses up to his past crimes, pays compensation, gives up his entire WMD program, stops supporting terrorists, and starts helping us fight him, and we take him off our šhìŧ list and allow him to start joining the civil community. This was shortly after we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam with hardly any effort, so K-Daffy knew we more than capable. It was, overall, a good deal. That deal got tossed as soon as Europe saw a chance to score some cheap oil, and leaned on Obama to take a back-seat leadership role (while doing most of the work) and help off K-Daffy. This means that the chances of scoring similar deals with other rogue dictators (Kim Jong Il of South Korea, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, and Bashar Assad of Syria, just to name three) are pretty much nil, as they see what such promises mean.
.
2) K-Daffy was a monster to his own people, but since 2003 had not bothered anyone outside his own borders. He’d kept his end of the deal, and was far less a threat to the rest of the world than the above-mentioned unworthies.
.
3) We don’t know squat about what will come after, let alone have any assurances that Libya won’t follow the model of Egypt — which is ratcheting up the anti-Israeli sentiments, massacring the Coptic Christians, and heading for yet another Islamist tyranny.
.
Was K-Daffy bad? Oh, yeah. Will his fall and ignominious death make things better?
. Nobody has any clue, and anyone who is optimistic is clapping for Tinkerbell.
.
J.
“Europe”… thats rich.
.
The Civil war started due to Gadaffi reaction to the protests that, in resemblance to Tunis and Egypt, were springing in Libya. When you use war planes to mow down protestors you certainly deserve whatever comes your way.
.
European leaders were pretty slow to condemm his actions and when they did, they did in a lukewarm way. Some even went as far as defining him as “our eccentric north african friend”. Why? because european companies already had a sweet deal with Gadaffi, specially italian ones.
.
The protests then became a civil war, one in wich european public opinion favored the rebels. THEN France weighted in for an intervention. Not because they were beign really nice guys, of course, but because they wanted to be first in line to the new oil and gas contracts (and maybe cut the italian share). The bulk of the effort, by the accounts I’ve read (spanish, british and american) is carried by the french and the brits.
.
By the way, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the 14th most powerful person in the iranian goverment, the only one of those 14 that is elected. Not an endorsement of him but that hardly makes him a dictator or the person to negotiate with.
.
Don’t try to inject any facts into this, El Hombre Malo, they just confuse him.
Really, Jay? Yes, there will be unforseen repurcussions. Yes, some things could have possibly been done better. Yes, some flaws in institutions like NATO were revealed.
.
But really, can’t you give Obama props for what is, for now, the best of all possible outcomes…minimal American casualties, less of a chance than in many other excursions that the U.S. will be blamed if things go wrong, etc…can’t you give the man his due for a day or two for helping get a butcher that I would have been dancing in the streets if Reagan got him in 1986…and so am doing the same thing now.
.
By criticizing Obama no matter what, you weaken your position when you have more valid arguments.
Guilty? Not at all. Whether one should feel happy about his death is a matter of discussion though. Leaving aside the purely ethical issues of a human death, it’s interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Muammar However-You-Transliterate-His-Name lived to be hauled before the World Criminal Court. Or if he had been tried in Libya? I don’t have any educated guesses myself.
I don’t feel too guilty, especially since America had little-to-nothing to do with his actual death.
But boy, is that video footage disturbing.
In his last moments he got to know how his many victims felt. If there is a hëll let him relive those moments for eternity.
Yeah, Jay. Obama helped topple K-Daffy because the Europeans wanted some cheap oil. Bush toppled Saddam because he knew Saddam had WMBs. No oil involved THERE.
.
And let’s forget all about Libya experiencing a full-scale uprising , that tipped it out of K-Daffy’s control and made him launch a military response. Forget it. Erase it. But let’s remember all of Saddam’s attrocities, even though they dated from much before Bush toppled him.
.
But if a Republican President had toppled K-Daffy, you would be having multiple orgasms, spinning it all as an attempt to help the rebels and screaming your little lungs out if some Leftist even mentioned the word “oil.”
.
Sir, your hypocrisy is monumental.
.
Now, rant out of the way, to PAD’s question. No, obviously not. One less dictator in the world. One of my co-workers was deploring the cruelty of people cheering K-Daffy’s death, Libyans taking picture of his corpse, etc. My answer to her was that I didn’t deplore it at all. K-Daffy set himself up as a GOD. He deserved to fall and badly.
.
I felt the same about Saddam when Bush toppled him, by the way. And I was cautiously optimistic about Iraq, it was only later that I got disillusioned. I didn’t condemn it beforehand because the President at the time had a R before his name.
.
What will happen to Libya now? God only knows. Again, I will be cautiously optimistic, because this time at least there was a native rebellion already in place, so hopefully there will not be the specter of gratuituous Western intervention to haunt Post-K-Daffy Libya, the way it happened with Iraq.
Bush at least got Congress to back his move. Obama looked at the War Powers Resolution and said “it ain’t a war as long as I don’t call it one.”
.
It’s also WMDs, not WMBs — “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And he did have them — we recovered quite a sizable number of poison gas shells Saddam was obligated to destroy under the terms of his 1991 surrender. But I ain’t interested in re-arguing that one.
.
Europe — especially France — wanted Saddam gone, and wanted us to do most of the work on it while they took the “lead.” And we did. Ain’t we nice?
.
I hope you’re right about your optimism. I just don’t see any reason for it as yet.
.
As far as your personal attacks and contempt… feel free to bite me.
.
J.
Obama looked at the War Powers Resolution and said “it ain’t a war as long as I don’t call it one.”
.
Because no president had never ever in the history of this country done that before, right Jay “Loose With Facts” Tea?
Which makes it right how…?
.
You won’t lose your liberal street cred if you acknowledge that Obama does something wrong, if you truly believe that. The “Well, other guys did it too” argument is something for people way less intelligent than you are, Craig.
Because no president had never ever in the history of this country done that before, right Jay “Loose With Facts” Tea?
.
Yes, exactly, Craig. Every president since it was passed had done exactly the same thing: they acted “consistent with the War Powers Act,” but have specifically stated that they are not acknowledging its binding authority. One of Bill Clinton’s was seriously sketchy, but no president before Obama had simply ignored its provisions. Not Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II.
.
I guess, like when Whoopi Goldberg said that Roman Polanski’s drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape,” our actions in Libya weren’t “war-war.”
.
Note to President-to-be Bachmann: don’t call it “war,” call it “kinetic military action” or some other made-up BS term.
.
J.
Which makes it right how…?
.
Did I say it did?
. but no president before Obama had simply ignored its provisions.
.
Well, you’re going to have to get a lot more specific than that. Because much like you keep rambling on with BS with Iraq’s supposed WMDs that you’ve already been proven incorrect about several times before, I have no reason to believe you know what you’re talking about regarding US military actions in Libya.
I’d say WMB carries some accuracy – Weapons of Mass Bûllšhìŧ.
Jay Tea: It’s also WMDs, not WMBs — “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And he did have them — we recovered quite a sizable number of poison gas shells Saddam was obligated to destroy under the terms of his 1991 surrender. But I ain’t interested in re-arguing that one.
Luigi Novi: People didn’t send their sons off to Iraq because of poison gas shells. If they did care about poison gas, they would’ve called for a removal of Hussein when he gassed his own people. The reason so many in the country went off to war is because the administration convinced them that Hussein had weapons that could hurt Americans–that is, nuclear weapons. And in that regard, they didn’t find dìçk.
Luigi is correct.
Hopefully the next dictator will be less of a jáçkášš. Not likely, though.
It’s hard to beat a transvestite terrorist fetishists with a liking to buxom ukranian nurses tho…
Bin Laden and Qadafi both gone within 6 months? To steal from someone else, if Obama were a Republican, the GOP would be insisting he be put on Rushmore by now.
The ironic thing, Sasha,is that these developments matter a lot less to his own base than they do conservatives. I’m talking the FAR left, who either condemn the actions or think they matter little in comparison to, say, punishing the rich, bankers, Wall Street, etc.
.
And the GOP would hardly show adoration for anyone who was determined to withdraw from two-long running wars at a pace not recommended by the military for stability, but for blatantly transparent poliical considerations/
It is ironic, isn’t it? However, it’s still yet another popular line of attack from the GOP that quickly falls apart (i.e., you’re not going to hear any of the Repub candidates accusing Obama of being weak on defense). I wouldn’t say that the far left is Obama’s base in the same way the Tea people are the GOP’s, but they are more in his camp than anyone else’s (except maybe Ron Paul).
.
The GOP adored Obama’s predecessor for engaging in two long-running wars (one whose initiation was so godawful political, the debate for its authorization was rushed so that it could be turned into a midterm election campaign issue) without anything resembling post-war planning or an exit strategy, so go figure.
Here’s the difference: Democrats will have differing opinions about the death and don’t automatically walk in lockstep to what Obama’s done as President. If he had an (R) after his name, there would be no one questioning anything from that side of the fence, it’s all good or can be explained away. It seems the conservatives on this board would never condemn anyone on their team, because in some way it makes them seem ‘weak.’
The thing is, very few people are enthusiastic about Obama right now. The far left probably lost faith in him when he failed to close Guantanamo and end the Patriot Act the day after he stepped into the White House. The moderate left had its hopes eroded more slowly, but no less certainly, when it seems the only thing Obama is good for, ironically, is to kill the bad guys.
.
Really, one of the few arguments the Left has to re-elect Obama is that he is not nearly as bad as the rogue’s gallery of unbelievable freaks the GOP has as candidates. But if the GOP chooses a non-freak candidate like Romney, then I would have a hard time coming up with arguments as to why Obama is better than him.
.
Not even the argument that Romney would be influenced by the Tea Party holds water. Obama himself seems scared of going against the Tea Party Republicans, so I don’t see how Romney would be worse.
.
I agree with Neil, by the way. Conservatives are automatically in lockstep with the GOP and defend everything a R-President does. Liberals are not blind followers of Obama. I think Liberals nowadays are more obsessed with hating the GOP politicians than cheering their own side. 🙂
Well, they are welcome to run on the “We came, we saw, he died” platform, if it’s such a winner. He may have to include an applause sign for his base to know when they are supposed to clap.
A demonstrably-much-more-competent-than-the-chuckleheads-running-against-me works as a good plank in an overall platform.
They may have trouble with the “demonstrably” part. Most people can read and do simple math.
Frankly, so far I don’t see a lot to recommend Obama, except that he isn’t an abomination like most of the GOP hopefuls. Obama is just sort of innefectual.
.
If the GOP chooses a non-abomination candidate, then the US may as well elect him to see if he fares any better than Obama.
Ineffectual? Really? Let’s look at the obvious record:
.
* saved the economy from sliding into ruin with a stimulus package that that was as large as politically possible
* saved the US auto industry (which Romney opposed) and presided over almost consecutive monthly increases in private sector job growth
* got healthcare reform passed via the ACA
* got financial reform passed via Dodd-Frank and set up a much needed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
* ended torture as official policy
* got START ratified
* ended DADT
* is actually winding down Iraq
* properly handled the Egypt uprisings, allowing for a popular movement to depose a dictator
* set in motion the international response that led to Libya’s liberation and Qadafi’s downfall
* took out Bin Laden
* etc.
.
(for more, check out http://wháŧŧhëfûçkhášøbámádøņëšøfár.com/)
.
Anyone who seriously believes that Obama has been an ineffectual president is either deeply ignorant or deeply in denial.
Sasha,
.
It’s very debatable that Obama “saved” the economy, as the piss-poor performance of US economy, the high rate of unemployment, etc. seems to be the common driving force of the Tea Party and the Occupiers.
.
Maybe you mean he saved the US from even higher economic catastrophe? Perhaps.
.
Handled Egypt? What has Obama done except sit by and let it happen? Again, perhaps we’re meant to appreciate his valor when compared to a hypothetical GOP President who would do something boneheaded as trying to intervene in Egypt to help a friendly dictator?
.
Healthcare reform has been a sort of patchwork monstrosity that didn’t make anyone help and resulted in Obama spending all his political capital and generally looking weak.
.
Ended torture as official policy. Wow! I would be deeply surprised if he didn’t. As a President who doesn’t condone torture is the very least I’d expect!
.
As for Bin Laden. I acknowledged that he is good at killing the bad guys. And I’ll give him props for ending DADT.
.
I am still very disappointed in him. I mean, yeah, he was not as bad as Bush, but that is very faint praise, as I see Bush as the worst American President in my lifetime.
.
I still think he may be the right man for the wrong time. A man who had incredible political capital but let opportunity pass him by and further weakened his own party while allowing the opposition to grow strong despite 10 years of them ruining the country (and the rest of the world, as consequence).
.
He is a consensus-maker, an old-style politician, in a time when the new breed of politician on the other side devours the flesh of the hand extended to them.
.
But hey, I still hope I’ll be proved wrong, that Iraq will turn out as well as it might, and that Obama’s second term will be better.
I meant, “monstrosity that didn’t make anyone HAPPY”
Like I said – he saved the economy from sliding into ruin. Virtually every economist agrees that the stimulus bill halted the economic downturn. The high rate of unemployment may very well help drive the Occupiers, but it’s apparently the federal deficit that’s the Tea peoples’ main concern.
.
Obama didn’t merely let what happened in Egypt happen. He managed to walk a very fine diplomatic line between supporting the protestors and a friendly dictatorship. Even a few GOPers gave him credit for his deft handling of the situation.
.
The ACA, ungainly as it is, made quite a number of people happy — namely, the people who are currently benefiting from its provisions. Obama used most of his political capital making his signature campaign issue a reality despite unprecedented GOP obstruction, and got it done. It didn’t make him look weak at all.
.
It’s pretty sad that the country got to a point where ending torture as policy could be considered a note-worthy accomplishment. 🙁
.
Bin Laden and DADT: Nothing to kvetch about there. 🙂
.
Perhaps you have a different perspective than I do, but I’m generally pleased with Obama’s overall performance. (For instance, what would you have preferred he had spent his political capital on instead during the past three years?) I’m not sure how he weakened the Dems, and I can’t see how he strengthened the Repubs outside of the fact that his very existence animated the most atavistic segments of the Right to engage in blind, lockstep, frothing opposition.
.
Obama is primarily a consensus-maker rather than an autocrat. That’s what he ran as, and that’s exactly what a President should be. I’m not going blame him when virtually all of the responsibility for the current unbridled partisanship correctly belongs to his political opponents.
.
That said, after so many earnest attempts at reaching across to aisle only to be shat upon, Obama has objectively and conclusively demonstrated that the GOP are the ones to blame for the broken political process and he seems to be shifting gears. His insistence about getting the American Jobs Act past and hammering the GOP for their knee-jerk filibustering to even debate portions of the bill is refreshing to watch.
Sasha, you make your points well, and I hope Obama’s second term will be better, but I still can’t help but feeling disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much from “Yes, We Can!”
.
Maybe I was expecting Obama to be so secure and promoting of a left-wing agenda as Bush was of a right-wing agenda. Because, as much as I dislike Bush and only tolerate Reagan, I think they were very powerful promoters of their worldviews, really changing the world (mostly for the worse, IMO, though I cheered the Fall of Soviet Communism).
.
I suppose I naively hoped that Obama, the first black President, would be the same for the Left. A real game-changer. So far, I haven’t seen it.
.
Guantanamo is still functioning, ditto for the Patriot Act, Wall Street has record profits during a recession, unemployment is high, taxes for the rich are a record low, unions are demonized… Economically, I wish Obama showed fiercer commitment to the “socialist” ideal that no one going hungry in the richest nation of the planet is more important than passing yet another Free Trade low.
.
It’s funny, Sasha. I am not a big fan of the current President of my country, or the former one. The last two Brazilian elections, I voted null (we have mandatory voting here, but obviously we can still vote null), but I think they did a whole lot more for the poor, both in pratical terms and, let’s say, to seduce the poor to their side, than Obama ever did. Brazil had record number of people leaving the poverty line, record number of new jobs, while the US seemed to go the opposite direction, man. I thought the world was upside down, Brazilian politicians doing some good things, for once.
.
And culturally, what is Obama doing to promote and advance the causes of science, secularism, tolerance, enlightenment, individual rights, that is remotely similar to how much Bush pushed faith-based initiatives, sometimes even outside the US?
.
Obama didn’t even came out fully in favor of gay marriage, dammnit. What, is he scared of losing the Rapture vote? Newsflash: those people already think he is the Anti-Christ, literally. When the opposition already paints you as Communist bent on destroying America, what would it cost Obama to be a little less moderate?
.
One analyst said Obama has trained himself to never appear as Angry Black Man, because that would be the end of any serious career he could have had in politics. I think he trained himself too well, Sasha. I admire many things about him, but other times he seems like such a wimp.
“yet another Free Trade LAW”, dámņ.
I knew that Obama would change things, but I didn’t expect him to be a Messiah, but I get the feeling that that’s exactly what a lot of supporters were expecting.
.
Many people hoped Obama would be the anti-Bush by being as doctrinaire and inflexible for left-wing causes as Bush was for the Right. But Obama truly is an anti-Bush by rejecting the concept of an autocratic and divisive unitary executive and returning the Presidency back from what Bush’s Administration corrupted it into. Obama is a game-changer, but just not in the sweeping bombastic and dramatic ways that one might imagine from someone regarded as Bush-but-Democratic-and competent.
.
Guantanamo still functions because Congress is filled with terrified legislators who apparently believe that if allowed on US soil, the detainees will suddenly develop superpowers and destroy America, so they will not fund any relocation of the prisoners. (This also mostly accounts for the PATRIOT Act still going strong.) That Obama is now sticking the American Jobs Act into the GOP’s eye demonstrates that he indeed is showing a greater commitment to economic justice.
.
Culturally, Obama is advancing the causes you list. He advocates for more research and education funding, and insists that America continue to out-innovate. He is the only President to actually mention that atheists are part of the American fabric and whose (non)beliefs deserve respect. He has spoken numerous times on tolerance (most famously when discussing race relations in response to Rev. Wright and most recently at the dedication of the MLK memorial). He has made numerous speeches, both in and out of the US about the importance human rights. The difference is, like I mentioned before, he is a true anti-Bush in that he’s not an swaggering, obnoxious, zealous jerk about it. I consider this to be a good thing.
.
You might remember that although Obama has expressed approval about civil unions for homosexuals, he never stated any unreserved support for gay marriage. A lot of people seem to think that he really didn’t mean that and he was actually secretly for it, but that’s just hopeful projection (in the same way I’ve seen a bunch of other people be disappointed that he hasn’t come out in favor of legalizing pot). Regardless, he has done a good deal to advance the likelihood and acceptance of gay marriage. His methodical repeal of DADT has mainstreamed acceptance of homosexuals in a way that almost certainly cannot be reversed, and his decision to no longer have the Department of Justice defend DOMA in court helps pave the way in an unobtrusive, but more meaningful, manner.
.
(Also keep in mind that the current operating philosophy of the GOP is to oppose anything that Obama supports. The recent NY marriage equality law passed with with bipartisan support. Had Obama at that time come out in favor of gay marriage, the GOP supporters of the bill would have immediately voted against it simply out of reflex.)
.
I’ve heard about the Angry Black Man issue and there’s a point there — a white politician (and white folk in general) can get a pass with šhìŧ that no black person would be allowed to. I don’t think that that’s what Obama is doing. From what I’ve read about him, Obama learned at an early age to be a cool customer and calm reason is his default state. That he doesn’t rage back when his political opponents spit vile bile in his face doesn’t mean he’s a wimp, it means that he’s just not willing to argue with fools. One thing you’ll notice about recent polling is that although Obama’s job performance and approval is down, his personal likability and trust that he knows what he’s doing is way above anything the Republicans score. His talent is that after his opponents rant and rave and whine and misbehave, when Obama finally engages directly with them he immediately comes off as the only adult in the room. That’s what I think is the ultimate thing people don’t realize about what’s going on: The GOP are playing tactically, Obama is thinking long-term strategy.
Sasha –
Again, nice points. I suppose I will have to wait and see if Obama’s long-term strategy will work out.
.
I appreciate what you’re saying regarding Obama trying to undo the corruption of the role of the POTUS. But I’m afraid.
.
I’m afraid. Just imagine what happens if the Democrats keep trying to play fair, to be statesmen, to be professionals and then the next Republican POTUS does a Bush all over again and rides roughshod over those good intentions, and America slides farther and farther to the Right, again.
.
I suppose, everything I’m saying boils down to this: if one side plays fair and gentlemanly, whie the other side cheats and kicks when the opponent is down and does everything to win and advance its agenda and has killer instinct and seeks hegemony by whatever means necessary…
.
Which side do you think will win more and more ground?
.
I admire your idealism, but I believe that the aggressive stance of the 21th-century Right deserves an equally aggressive response.
.
But I may be wrong. I hope Obama is right, and his acting mature and being a good President will cause the hysterical Right to be seen as crazy by more and more of the independent and moderate voters, until the GOP kicks the Tea Party crowd back to the fringe they belong to.
In short (and so we don’t keep shuffling between threads), I believe Obama did exactly what he should have done by making an earnest attempt at bipartisanship. Say what you will about him, no one can honestly and objectively accuse him of not making a sincere try. His actions have allowed it to be very clear which side is actually to blame for the current rancor.
.
As for your concern winning ground, although the side with the loudest and most unhinged voices have made great strides in getting attention to their agenda, the side that has actually tried to work with the system to establish its agenda — rather than impose it — has laid down frameworks (ACA, DADT repeal) from which further and lasting progress can be built.
.
There is nothing wrong with confronting those who attempt to force their positions like the modern Right has been doing. However, timing is key: Engaging in a shoving match from the onset wouldn’t have accomplished much and simply reinforces the incorrect perception that both sides are acting equally irresponsibly. Better to let the aggressor push and then unceremoniously knock him down on his ášš when inevitably overextends. The GOP has gone (and continues to go) on the record of unequivocally opposing job creation in the name of protecting multimillionaires from the least increase of taxes, and Obama has been smacking on them hard for that. The time for aggressive response seems to be nigh.
.
And don’t forget the ultimate message of Obama: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. Defeating the reactionary agenda of the modern Right requires that ordinary citizens take matters into their own hands and demand change, rather than simply hope that a politician elected on that motto does it for them. Obama helped begin the process by calling on constituents to call Congress. The spontaneous growing popularity of the Occupy Wall Street movement suggests to me that the appropriate response to the kooks who’ve been running the country into the ground is soon arriving.
All the GOP crowing in the world about the big U.S. victory during Desert Storm couldn’t get Bush the Elder re-elected in 1992. Why? Simple: Bush took his eye off of the economy during a “non-recession” recession. Similarly, and despite what is quite an impressive body-count (especially for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient), Obama faces a similar fate unless he gets his economic act together.
Obama also has the aggravant of disappointing most of his own base in most of their signature issues, while being seen as the Anti-Christ by the right.
.
He will probably win the re-election even so. The GOP guys are either even more boring and uncharismatic as Obama (Romney) or scary zealots that appeal only to their own.
He has, but the GOP hasn’t (see the American Jobs Act, both in toto and piecemeal).
.
Frankly, unless their is a hue and cry from the citizenry at large, the GOP will filibuster and vote down any legislation that would help the short-term economy and unemployment until 2012. I’m glad to see Obama and the Dems calling them out on it.
It’s sad, but “any lost life diminishes us all and it should never have come to this” sad, not “I’m going to cry” sad.
While I don’t feel bad that he is dead, I do hope people aren’t cheering for the people who killed him.
He was the devil you know, the new people are more than likely the devil we don’t know.
“Sic semper tyrannis.”
-Marcus Junius Brutus
My answer: No.
.
Nope, no problems at all. Even less problems given the minimal amount of effort we ultimately had to expend to do it.
.
I would have preferred it if he had been captured and placed on trial, but that wasn’t our call.
Even less problems given the minimal amount of effort we ultimately had to expend to do it.
.
And this, imo, is the key I’ve said it here, I’ve said it elsewhere: you cannot force democracy upon people or upon a country. They have to want it for themselves.
.
While we gave the rebels in Libya a nudge and some (air) support, that is a far, far cry from the clusterf*ck that we made of Iraq.
Nope. No reason to feel guilty. I don’t cheer for anyone’s death, but there are several people I won’t lose sleep over, and this guy was near the top of the list.
I am once again reminded of the “And the Rock Cried out” scene from Babylon 5. No hiding place down here.
It seems like Obama just announced the removal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
I’m certainly not losing sleep over it, but was speaaking with someone in Indiana last night who felt he should have been taken to court and still feels uncomfortable about the bin Laden thing. At least this time it wasn’t the West who did the bad guy in, it was his own people.
How many countries did Qadaffi invade?
How many did George Bush invade?
Remembering that invading another country is the crime upon which all the other crimes follow (as per Nuremberg Reasoning), how many deaths is George Bush responsible for?
How does this number compare to the number Qadaffi is responsible for?
The difference is the power of emperors as opposed to pirates, but both commit crimes against humanity.
Explain to us why we should feel sympathy or guilt when Bush, Clinton, or Obama finally die and you will have your answer. While I suspect you will feel sympathy for the American criminals, I will feel no more for them than I do the street level criminal Qadaffi.
I was hoping that this would end with that guy in the prisoners’ dock at the International Criminal Court myself. One more step on the Road to Accountability, right?
“I guess I oughta be happy…but I’m not.” – John M. Ford
• 
Well actually I want to post a long political rant about the left wing conspiracies and that the…
I can’t even type that with a straight face.
.
Nope. No problems here.
.
TAC
At this point, we’re merely trading one set of problems for another with the death of Gaddafi.
I will not tell anyone how to feel.
However, as a pacifist, I will say that I always prefer it to go a different way than a path that involves killing.
Yeah, he was a monster and the world’s a better place without him. But let me spell out the downsides:
.
1) Back in 2003, we cut a tacit deal with him: he fesses up to his past crimes, pays compensation, gives up his entire WMD program, stops supporting terrorists, and starts helping us fight him, and we take him off our šhìŧ list and allow him to start joining the civil community. This was shortly after we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam with hardly any effort, so K-Daffy knew we more than capable. It was, overall, a good deal. That deal got tossed as soon as Europe saw a chance to score some cheap oil, and leaned on Obama to take a back-seat leadership role (while doing most of the work) and help off K-Daffy. This means that the chances of scoring similar deals with other rogue dictators (Kim Jong Il of South Korea, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, and Bashar Assad of Syria, just to name three) are pretty much nil, as they see what such promises mean.
.
2) K-Daffy was a monster to his own people, but since 2003 had not bothered anyone outside his own borders. He’d kept his end of the deal, and was far less a threat to the rest of the world than the above-mentioned unworthies.
.
3) We don’t know squat about what will come after, let alone have any assurances that Libya won’t follow the model of Egypt — which is ratcheting up the anti-Israeli sentiments, massacring the Coptic Christians, and heading for yet another Islamist tyranny.
.
Was K-Daffy bad? Oh, yeah. Will his fall and ignominious death make things better?
.
Nobody has any clue, and anyone who is optimistic is clapping for Tinkerbell.
.
J.
“Europe”… thats rich.
.
The Civil war started due to Gadaffi reaction to the protests that, in resemblance to Tunis and Egypt, were springing in Libya. When you use war planes to mow down protestors you certainly deserve whatever comes your way.
.
European leaders were pretty slow to condemm his actions and when they did, they did in a lukewarm way. Some even went as far as defining him as “our eccentric north african friend”. Why? because european companies already had a sweet deal with Gadaffi, specially italian ones.
.
The protests then became a civil war, one in wich european public opinion favored the rebels. THEN France weighted in for an intervention. Not because they were beign really nice guys, of course, but because they wanted to be first in line to the new oil and gas contracts (and maybe cut the italian share). The bulk of the effort, by the accounts I’ve read (spanish, british and american) is carried by the french and the brits.
.
By the way, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the 14th most powerful person in the iranian goverment, the only one of those 14 that is elected. Not an endorsement of him but that hardly makes him a dictator or the person to negotiate with.
.
Don’t try to inject any facts into this, El Hombre Malo, they just confuse him.
Really, Jay? Yes, there will be unforseen repurcussions. Yes, some things could have possibly been done better. Yes, some flaws in institutions like NATO were revealed.
.
But really, can’t you give Obama props for what is, for now, the best of all possible outcomes…minimal American casualties, less of a chance than in many other excursions that the U.S. will be blamed if things go wrong, etc…can’t you give the man his due for a day or two for helping get a butcher that I would have been dancing in the streets if Reagan got him in 1986…and so am doing the same thing now.
.
By criticizing Obama no matter what, you weaken your position when you have more valid arguments.
Guilty? Not at all. Whether one should feel happy about his death is a matter of discussion though. Leaving aside the purely ethical issues of a human death, it’s interesting to speculate on what might have happened had Muammar However-You-Transliterate-His-Name lived to be hauled before the World Criminal Court. Or if he had been tried in Libya? I don’t have any educated guesses myself.
I don’t feel too guilty, especially since America had little-to-nothing to do with his actual death.
But boy, is that video footage disturbing.
In his last moments he got to know how his many victims felt. If there is a hëll let him relive those moments for eternity.
Yeah, Jay. Obama helped topple K-Daffy because the Europeans wanted some cheap oil. Bush toppled Saddam because he knew Saddam had WMBs. No oil involved THERE.
.
And let’s forget all about Libya experiencing a full-scale uprising , that tipped it out of K-Daffy’s control and made him launch a military response. Forget it. Erase it. But let’s remember all of Saddam’s attrocities, even though they dated from much before Bush toppled him.
.
But if a Republican President had toppled K-Daffy, you would be having multiple orgasms, spinning it all as an attempt to help the rebels and screaming your little lungs out if some Leftist even mentioned the word “oil.”
.
Sir, your hypocrisy is monumental.
.
Now, rant out of the way, to PAD’s question. No, obviously not. One less dictator in the world. One of my co-workers was deploring the cruelty of people cheering K-Daffy’s death, Libyans taking picture of his corpse, etc. My answer to her was that I didn’t deplore it at all. K-Daffy set himself up as a GOD. He deserved to fall and badly.
.
I felt the same about Saddam when Bush toppled him, by the way. And I was cautiously optimistic about Iraq, it was only later that I got disillusioned. I didn’t condemn it beforehand because the President at the time had a R before his name.
.
What will happen to Libya now? God only knows. Again, I will be cautiously optimistic, because this time at least there was a native rebellion already in place, so hopefully there will not be the specter of gratuituous Western intervention to haunt Post-K-Daffy Libya, the way it happened with Iraq.
Bush at least got Congress to back his move. Obama looked at the War Powers Resolution and said “it ain’t a war as long as I don’t call it one.”
.
It’s also WMDs, not WMBs — “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And he did have them — we recovered quite a sizable number of poison gas shells Saddam was obligated to destroy under the terms of his 1991 surrender. But I ain’t interested in re-arguing that one.
.
Europe — especially France — wanted Saddam gone, and wanted us to do most of the work on it while they took the “lead.” And we did. Ain’t we nice?
.
I hope you’re right about your optimism. I just don’t see any reason for it as yet.
.
As far as your personal attacks and contempt… feel free to bite me.
.
J.
Obama looked at the War Powers Resolution and said “it ain’t a war as long as I don’t call it one.”
.
Because no president had never ever in the history of this country done that before, right Jay “Loose With Facts” Tea?
Which makes it right how…?
.
You won’t lose your liberal street cred if you acknowledge that Obama does something wrong, if you truly believe that. The “Well, other guys did it too” argument is something for people way less intelligent than you are, Craig.
Because no president had never ever in the history of this country done that before, right Jay “Loose With Facts” Tea?
.
Yes, exactly, Craig. Every president since it was passed had done exactly the same thing: they acted “consistent with the War Powers Act,” but have specifically stated that they are not acknowledging its binding authority. One of Bill Clinton’s was seriously sketchy, but no president before Obama had simply ignored its provisions. Not Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II.
.
I guess, like when Whoopi Goldberg said that Roman Polanski’s drugging and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape,” our actions in Libya weren’t “war-war.”
.
Note to President-to-be Bachmann: don’t call it “war,” call it “kinetic military action” or some other made-up BS term.
.
J.
Which makes it right how…?
.
Did I say it did?
.
but no president before Obama had simply ignored its provisions.
.
Well, you’re going to have to get a lot more specific than that. Because much like you keep rambling on with BS with Iraq’s supposed WMDs that you’ve already been proven incorrect about several times before, I have no reason to believe you know what you’re talking about regarding US military actions in Libya.
I’d say WMB carries some accuracy – Weapons of Mass Bûllšhìŧ.
Jay Tea: It’s also WMDs, not WMBs — “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And he did have them — we recovered quite a sizable number of poison gas shells Saddam was obligated to destroy under the terms of his 1991 surrender. But I ain’t interested in re-arguing that one.
Luigi Novi: People didn’t send their sons off to Iraq because of poison gas shells. If they did care about poison gas, they would’ve called for a removal of Hussein when he gassed his own people. The reason so many in the country went off to war is because the administration convinced them that Hussein had weapons that could hurt Americans–that is, nuclear weapons. And in that regard, they didn’t find dìçk.
Luigi is correct.
Hopefully the next dictator will be less of a jáçkášš. Not likely, though.
It’s hard to beat a transvestite terrorist fetishists with a liking to buxom ukranian nurses tho…
Bin Laden and Qadafi both gone within 6 months? To steal from someone else, if Obama were a Republican, the GOP would be insisting he be put on Rushmore by now.
The ironic thing, Sasha,is that these developments matter a lot less to his own base than they do conservatives. I’m talking the FAR left, who either condemn the actions or think they matter little in comparison to, say, punishing the rich, bankers, Wall Street, etc.
.
And the GOP would hardly show adoration for anyone who was determined to withdraw from two-long running wars at a pace not recommended by the military for stability, but for blatantly transparent poliical considerations/
It is ironic, isn’t it? However, it’s still yet another popular line of attack from the GOP that quickly falls apart (i.e., you’re not going to hear any of the Repub candidates accusing Obama of being weak on defense). I wouldn’t say that the far left is Obama’s base in the same way the Tea people are the GOP’s, but they are more in his camp than anyone else’s (except maybe Ron Paul).
.
The GOP adored Obama’s predecessor for engaging in two long-running wars (one whose initiation was so godawful political, the debate for its authorization was rushed so that it could be turned into a midterm election campaign issue) without anything resembling post-war planning or an exit strategy, so go figure.
Here’s the difference: Democrats will have differing opinions about the death and don’t automatically walk in lockstep to what Obama’s done as President. If he had an (R) after his name, there would be no one questioning anything from that side of the fence, it’s all good or can be explained away. It seems the conservatives on this board would never condemn anyone on their team, because in some way it makes them seem ‘weak.’
The thing is, very few people are enthusiastic about Obama right now. The far left probably lost faith in him when he failed to close Guantanamo and end the Patriot Act the day after he stepped into the White House. The moderate left had its hopes eroded more slowly, but no less certainly, when it seems the only thing Obama is good for, ironically, is to kill the bad guys.
.
Really, one of the few arguments the Left has to re-elect Obama is that he is not nearly as bad as the rogue’s gallery of unbelievable freaks the GOP has as candidates. But if the GOP chooses a non-freak candidate like Romney, then I would have a hard time coming up with arguments as to why Obama is better than him.
.
Not even the argument that Romney would be influenced by the Tea Party holds water. Obama himself seems scared of going against the Tea Party Republicans, so I don’t see how Romney would be worse.
.
I agree with Neil, by the way. Conservatives are automatically in lockstep with the GOP and defend everything a R-President does. Liberals are not blind followers of Obama. I think Liberals nowadays are more obsessed with hating the GOP politicians than cheering their own side. 🙂
Well, they are welcome to run on the “We came, we saw, he died” platform, if it’s such a winner. He may have to include an applause sign for his base to know when they are supposed to clap.
A demonstrably-much-more-competent-than-the-chuckleheads-running-against-me works as a good plank in an overall platform.
They may have trouble with the “demonstrably” part. Most people can read and do simple math.
Frankly, so far I don’t see a lot to recommend Obama, except that he isn’t an abomination like most of the GOP hopefuls. Obama is just sort of innefectual.
.
If the GOP chooses a non-abomination candidate, then the US may as well elect him to see if he fares any better than Obama.
Ineffectual? Really? Let’s look at the obvious record:
.
* saved the economy from sliding into ruin with a stimulus package that that was as large as politically possible
* saved the US auto industry (which Romney opposed) and presided over almost consecutive monthly increases in private sector job growth
* got healthcare reform passed via the ACA
* got financial reform passed via Dodd-Frank and set up a much needed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
* ended torture as official policy
* got START ratified
* ended DADT
* is actually winding down Iraq
* properly handled the Egypt uprisings, allowing for a popular movement to depose a dictator
* set in motion the international response that led to Libya’s liberation and Qadafi’s downfall
* took out Bin Laden
* etc.
.
(for more, check out http://wháŧŧhëfûçkhášøbámádøņëšøfár.com/)
.
Anyone who seriously believes that Obama has been an ineffectual president is either deeply ignorant or deeply in denial.
Sasha,
.
It’s very debatable that Obama “saved” the economy, as the piss-poor performance of US economy, the high rate of unemployment, etc. seems to be the common driving force of the Tea Party and the Occupiers.
.
Maybe you mean he saved the US from even higher economic catastrophe? Perhaps.
.
Handled Egypt? What has Obama done except sit by and let it happen? Again, perhaps we’re meant to appreciate his valor when compared to a hypothetical GOP President who would do something boneheaded as trying to intervene in Egypt to help a friendly dictator?
.
Healthcare reform has been a sort of patchwork monstrosity that didn’t make anyone help and resulted in Obama spending all his political capital and generally looking weak.
.
Ended torture as official policy. Wow! I would be deeply surprised if he didn’t. As a President who doesn’t condone torture is the very least I’d expect!
.
As for Bin Laden. I acknowledged that he is good at killing the bad guys. And I’ll give him props for ending DADT.
.
I am still very disappointed in him. I mean, yeah, he was not as bad as Bush, but that is very faint praise, as I see Bush as the worst American President in my lifetime.
.
I still think he may be the right man for the wrong time. A man who had incredible political capital but let opportunity pass him by and further weakened his own party while allowing the opposition to grow strong despite 10 years of them ruining the country (and the rest of the world, as consequence).
.
He is a consensus-maker, an old-style politician, in a time when the new breed of politician on the other side devours the flesh of the hand extended to them.
.
But hey, I still hope I’ll be proved wrong, that Iraq will turn out as well as it might, and that Obama’s second term will be better.
I meant, “monstrosity that didn’t make anyone HAPPY”
Like I said – he saved the economy from sliding into ruin. Virtually every economist agrees that the stimulus bill halted the economic downturn. The high rate of unemployment may very well help drive the Occupiers, but it’s apparently the federal deficit that’s the Tea peoples’ main concern.
.
Obama didn’t merely let what happened in Egypt happen. He managed to walk a very fine diplomatic line between supporting the protestors and a friendly dictatorship. Even a few GOPers gave him credit for his deft handling of the situation.
.
The ACA, ungainly as it is, made quite a number of people happy — namely, the people who are currently benefiting from its provisions. Obama used most of his political capital making his signature campaign issue a reality despite unprecedented GOP obstruction, and got it done. It didn’t make him look weak at all.
.
It’s pretty sad that the country got to a point where ending torture as policy could be considered a note-worthy accomplishment. 🙁
.
Bin Laden and DADT: Nothing to kvetch about there. 🙂
.
Perhaps you have a different perspective than I do, but I’m generally pleased with Obama’s overall performance. (For instance, what would you have preferred he had spent his political capital on instead during the past three years?) I’m not sure how he weakened the Dems, and I can’t see how he strengthened the Repubs outside of the fact that his very existence animated the most atavistic segments of the Right to engage in blind, lockstep, frothing opposition.
.
Obama is primarily a consensus-maker rather than an autocrat. That’s what he ran as, and that’s exactly what a President should be. I’m not going blame him when virtually all of the responsibility for the current unbridled partisanship correctly belongs to his political opponents.
.
That said, after so many earnest attempts at reaching across to aisle only to be shat upon, Obama has objectively and conclusively demonstrated that the GOP are the ones to blame for the broken political process and he seems to be shifting gears. His insistence about getting the American Jobs Act past and hammering the GOP for their knee-jerk filibustering to even debate portions of the bill is refreshing to watch.
Sasha, you make your points well, and I hope Obama’s second term will be better, but I still can’t help but feeling disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much from “Yes, We Can!”
.
Maybe I was expecting Obama to be so secure and promoting of a left-wing agenda as Bush was of a right-wing agenda. Because, as much as I dislike Bush and only tolerate Reagan, I think they were very powerful promoters of their worldviews, really changing the world (mostly for the worse, IMO, though I cheered the Fall of Soviet Communism).
.
I suppose I naively hoped that Obama, the first black President, would be the same for the Left. A real game-changer. So far, I haven’t seen it.
.
Guantanamo is still functioning, ditto for the Patriot Act, Wall Street has record profits during a recession, unemployment is high, taxes for the rich are a record low, unions are demonized… Economically, I wish Obama showed fiercer commitment to the “socialist” ideal that no one going hungry in the richest nation of the planet is more important than passing yet another Free Trade low.
.
It’s funny, Sasha. I am not a big fan of the current President of my country, or the former one. The last two Brazilian elections, I voted null (we have mandatory voting here, but obviously we can still vote null), but I think they did a whole lot more for the poor, both in pratical terms and, let’s say, to seduce the poor to their side, than Obama ever did. Brazil had record number of people leaving the poverty line, record number of new jobs, while the US seemed to go the opposite direction, man. I thought the world was upside down, Brazilian politicians doing some good things, for once.
.
And culturally, what is Obama doing to promote and advance the causes of science, secularism, tolerance, enlightenment, individual rights, that is remotely similar to how much Bush pushed faith-based initiatives, sometimes even outside the US?
.
Obama didn’t even came out fully in favor of gay marriage, dammnit. What, is he scared of losing the Rapture vote? Newsflash: those people already think he is the Anti-Christ, literally. When the opposition already paints you as Communist bent on destroying America, what would it cost Obama to be a little less moderate?
.
One analyst said Obama has trained himself to never appear as Angry Black Man, because that would be the end of any serious career he could have had in politics. I think he trained himself too well, Sasha. I admire many things about him, but other times he seems like such a wimp.
“yet another Free Trade LAW”, dámņ.
I knew that Obama would change things, but I didn’t expect him to be a Messiah, but I get the feeling that that’s exactly what a lot of supporters were expecting.
.
Many people hoped Obama would be the anti-Bush by being as doctrinaire and inflexible for left-wing causes as Bush was for the Right. But Obama truly is an anti-Bush by rejecting the concept of an autocratic and divisive unitary executive and returning the Presidency back from what Bush’s Administration corrupted it into. Obama is a game-changer, but just not in the sweeping bombastic and dramatic ways that one might imagine from someone regarded as Bush-but-Democratic-and competent.
.
Guantanamo still functions because Congress is filled with terrified legislators who apparently believe that if allowed on US soil, the detainees will suddenly develop superpowers and destroy America, so they will not fund any relocation of the prisoners. (This also mostly accounts for the PATRIOT Act still going strong.) That Obama is now sticking the American Jobs Act into the GOP’s eye demonstrates that he indeed is showing a greater commitment to economic justice.
.
Culturally, Obama is advancing the causes you list. He advocates for more research and education funding, and insists that America continue to out-innovate. He is the only President to actually mention that atheists are part of the American fabric and whose (non)beliefs deserve respect. He has spoken numerous times on tolerance (most famously when discussing race relations in response to Rev. Wright and most recently at the dedication of the MLK memorial). He has made numerous speeches, both in and out of the US about the importance human rights. The difference is, like I mentioned before, he is a true anti-Bush in that he’s not an swaggering, obnoxious, zealous jerk about it. I consider this to be a good thing.
.
You might remember that although Obama has expressed approval about civil unions for homosexuals, he never stated any unreserved support for gay marriage. A lot of people seem to think that he really didn’t mean that and he was actually secretly for it, but that’s just hopeful projection (in the same way I’ve seen a bunch of other people be disappointed that he hasn’t come out in favor of legalizing pot). Regardless, he has done a good deal to advance the likelihood and acceptance of gay marriage. His methodical repeal of DADT has mainstreamed acceptance of homosexuals in a way that almost certainly cannot be reversed, and his decision to no longer have the Department of Justice defend DOMA in court helps pave the way in an unobtrusive, but more meaningful, manner.
.
(Also keep in mind that the current operating philosophy of the GOP is to oppose anything that Obama supports. The recent NY marriage equality law passed with with bipartisan support. Had Obama at that time come out in favor of gay marriage, the GOP supporters of the bill would have immediately voted against it simply out of reflex.)
.
I’ve heard about the Angry Black Man issue and there’s a point there — a white politician (and white folk in general) can get a pass with šhìŧ that no black person would be allowed to. I don’t think that that’s what Obama is doing. From what I’ve read about him, Obama learned at an early age to be a cool customer and calm reason is his default state. That he doesn’t rage back when his political opponents spit vile bile in his face doesn’t mean he’s a wimp, it means that he’s just not willing to argue with fools. One thing you’ll notice about recent polling is that although Obama’s job performance and approval is down, his personal likability and trust that he knows what he’s doing is way above anything the Republicans score. His talent is that after his opponents rant and rave and whine and misbehave, when Obama finally engages directly with them he immediately comes off as the only adult in the room. That’s what I think is the ultimate thing people don’t realize about what’s going on: The GOP are playing tactically, Obama is thinking long-term strategy.
Sasha –
Again, nice points. I suppose I will have to wait and see if Obama’s long-term strategy will work out.
.
I appreciate what you’re saying regarding Obama trying to undo the corruption of the role of the POTUS. But I’m afraid.
.
I’m afraid. Just imagine what happens if the Democrats keep trying to play fair, to be statesmen, to be professionals and then the next Republican POTUS does a Bush all over again and rides roughshod over those good intentions, and America slides farther and farther to the Right, again.
.
I suppose, everything I’m saying boils down to this: if one side plays fair and gentlemanly, whie the other side cheats and kicks when the opponent is down and does everything to win and advance its agenda and has killer instinct and seeks hegemony by whatever means necessary…
.
Which side do you think will win more and more ground?
.
I admire your idealism, but I believe that the aggressive stance of the 21th-century Right deserves an equally aggressive response.
.
But I may be wrong. I hope Obama is right, and his acting mature and being a good President will cause the hysterical Right to be seen as crazy by more and more of the independent and moderate voters, until the GOP kicks the Tea Party crowd back to the fringe they belong to.
In short (and so we don’t keep shuffling between threads), I believe Obama did exactly what he should have done by making an earnest attempt at bipartisanship. Say what you will about him, no one can honestly and objectively accuse him of not making a sincere try. His actions have allowed it to be very clear which side is actually to blame for the current rancor.
.
As for your concern winning ground, although the side with the loudest and most unhinged voices have made great strides in getting attention to their agenda, the side that has actually tried to work with the system to establish its agenda — rather than impose it — has laid down frameworks (ACA, DADT repeal) from which further and lasting progress can be built.
.
There is nothing wrong with confronting those who attempt to force their positions like the modern Right has been doing. However, timing is key: Engaging in a shoving match from the onset wouldn’t have accomplished much and simply reinforces the incorrect perception that both sides are acting equally irresponsibly. Better to let the aggressor push and then unceremoniously knock him down on his ášš when inevitably overextends. The GOP has gone (and continues to go) on the record of unequivocally opposing job creation in the name of protecting multimillionaires from the least increase of taxes, and Obama has been smacking on them hard for that. The time for aggressive response seems to be nigh.
.
And don’t forget the ultimate message of Obama: We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. Defeating the reactionary agenda of the modern Right requires that ordinary citizens take matters into their own hands and demand change, rather than simply hope that a politician elected on that motto does it for them. Obama helped begin the process by calling on constituents to call Congress. The spontaneous growing popularity of the Occupy Wall Street movement suggests to me that the appropriate response to the kooks who’ve been running the country into the ground is soon arriving.
All the GOP crowing in the world about the big U.S. victory during Desert Storm couldn’t get Bush the Elder re-elected in 1992. Why? Simple: Bush took his eye off of the economy during a “non-recession” recession. Similarly, and despite what is quite an impressive body-count (especially for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient), Obama faces a similar fate unless he gets his economic act together.
Obama also has the aggravant of disappointing most of his own base in most of their signature issues, while being seen as the Anti-Christ by the right.
.
He will probably win the re-election even so. The GOP guys are either even more boring and uncharismatic as Obama (Romney) or scary zealots that appeal only to their own.
He has, but the GOP hasn’t (see the American Jobs Act, both in toto and piecemeal).
.
Frankly, unless their is a hue and cry from the citizenry at large, the GOP will filibuster and vote down any legislation that would help the short-term economy and unemployment until 2012. I’m glad to see Obama and the Dems calling them out on it.
As usual, The Onion gets the possible republican reaction better than anyone: http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-praise-nixon-administration-for-allowi,21210/
It’s sad, but “any lost life diminishes us all and it should never have come to this” sad, not “I’m going to cry” sad.
While I don’t feel bad that he is dead, I do hope people aren’t cheering for the people who killed him.
He was the devil you know, the new people are more than likely the devil we don’t know.
“Sic semper tyrannis.”
-Marcus Junius Brutus
My answer: No.
.
Nope, no problems at all. Even less problems given the minimal amount of effort we ultimately had to expend to do it.
.
I would have preferred it if he had been captured and placed on trial, but that wasn’t our call.
Even less problems given the minimal amount of effort we ultimately had to expend to do it.
.
And this, imo, is the key I’ve said it here, I’ve said it elsewhere: you cannot force democracy upon people or upon a country. They have to want it for themselves.
.
While we gave the rebels in Libya a nudge and some (air) support, that is a far, far cry from the clusterf*ck that we made of Iraq.
Nope. No reason to feel guilty. I don’t cheer for anyone’s death, but there are several people I won’t lose sleep over, and this guy was near the top of the list.
I am once again reminded of the “And the Rock Cried out” scene from Babylon 5. No hiding place down here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZbThGsOFa0
It seems like Obama just announced the removal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of the year.
I’m certainly not losing sleep over it, but was speaaking with someone in Indiana last night who felt he should have been taken to court and still feels uncomfortable about the bin Laden thing. At least this time it wasn’t the West who did the bad guy in, it was his own people.
How many countries did Qadaffi invade?
How many did George Bush invade?
Remembering that invading another country is the crime upon which all the other crimes follow (as per Nuremberg Reasoning), how many deaths is George Bush responsible for?
How does this number compare to the number Qadaffi is responsible for?
The difference is the power of emperors as opposed to pirates, but both commit crimes against humanity.
Explain to us why we should feel sympathy or guilt when Bush, Clinton, or Obama finally die and you will have your answer. While I suspect you will feel sympathy for the American criminals, I will feel no more for them than I do the street level criminal Qadaffi.
I was hoping that this would end with that guy in the prisoners’ dock at the International Criminal Court myself. One more step on the Road to Accountability, right?
“I guess I oughta be happy…but I’m not.” – John M. Ford