Support, as in volunteering and donating? Yes: if he extends the Bush tax cuts, I'll make snide remarks about the "Obama tax cuts" and vow to redirect all my political activity away from the presidential campaign and the DNC, toward state or congressional races, letters to the editor, etc. And quit wearing my Obama t-shirts.

Iow, that stuff already happened. If the Republicans nominate a strong presidential candidate, though, my resolve will be sorely tested.

Grrrrrrrrr.....

The city of TRIPOLI shall be the capital of the State...

Michale.....

Effective??

How do you gauge "effective"??

We are going to have a HUGE seat at the table in Libya -- MUCH better than we're going to wind up with in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in the end. The difference is that in Libya, we're going to be INVITED to sit at their table, instead of forcing ourselves upon them.

Based on what??

Have you read the new Libya "Constitution"??

"The city of Libya shall be the capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence(Sharia)."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62823350/Libya-Draft-Constitutional-Charter-for-the-Transitional-Stage

Do you honestly think that the US is going to sit at THAT table???

I'll bet you 5,000 quatloos right now that in five years' time, you'll agree that the Libyan government which emerges is more of an ally to America than either Ghaddafi's government OR either Iraq or Afghanistan's government at that point.

I'll take that bet...

Ya know why??

Because many said the EXACT same things about Iran after the Shah fell...

We know what happened then..

Many said the EXACT same things when Mubarak fell.. Egypt is following Iran's course exactly...

We are -- right now -- being hailed as liberators on the streets of Tripoli.

Cite???

Also, there will be no expensive and excruciating "nation-building" period in Libya. So which president handled their war better? What would you be saying now if the president was a Republican, hmmm?

Time will tell.. The Libya war is far from over...

And the REAL battle has yet to begin...

Unless the US makes some REAL investments in Libya, like Reagan and Bush did in Eastern Europe, it is all but assured that Libya will go the way of Iran and Egypt...

Michale.....

It's hard to argue against success, but you're going to try your damndest... that seems to be what you're arguing here. In other words, military power is right when a Republican uses it, but wrong when a Democrat uses it in a more effective manner?

Bush could have got Bin Laden in Tora Bora. He didn't -- because he was off to Iraq. You may have forgotten this, but not everyone has.

See my article today for my thoughts on Libya. Warning: you're going to hate it.

We are going to have a HUGE seat at the table in Libya -- MUCH better than we're going to wind up with in either Iraq or Afghanistan, in the end. The difference is that in Libya, we're going to be INVITED to sit at their table, instead of forcing ourselves upon them.

I'll bet you 5,000 quatloos right now that in five years' time, you'll agree that the Libyan government which emerges is more of an ally to America than either Ghaddafi's government OR either Iraq or Afghanistan's government at that point.

We are -- right now -- being hailed as liberators on the streets of Tripoli. Something which I've yet to see in Iraq, even though Bush promised it to us all. Also, there will be no expensive and excruciating "nation-building" period in Libya. So which president handled their war better? What would you be saying now if the president was a Republican, hmmm?

-CW

Bush Jr. was a very bad president. He was wrong about basically everything he was capable of forming an opinion on.

Opinions, in and of themselves, cannot be right or wrong...

As far as being wrong about everything, far from it...

We are finding out today just how right Bush was about "everything"...

If it wasn't for Bush, Obama would not have been able to get Bin Laden...

Question for you though..

Is there anything that Obama could do (or not do) that would end your support for him??

Just curious...

Michale.....

As it happens, though, I'm not a complete pacifist. I protested Bush Sr.'s Iraq war at the time, but in retrospect I think it's a lesser evil than letting Iraq keep Kuwait as conquered territory. It obviously was done successfully, with international legitimacy and a clear, limited goal.

Nor am I a complete partisan: my current most-disliked president is a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. I believe in the rights of people, not peoples. Wilson framed the great moral issue of the era in terms of the rights of nations against the claims of empires. If the rights of nations are the bottom line, there's no plausible means of adjudicating between them, and no clear stopping point on the road the world in fact went down after WWI. The putative rights of nations must instead be understood as the rights of people to develop and express their culture and heritage.

Bush Jr. was a very bad president. He was wrong about basically everything he was capable of forming an opinion on. But he wasn't a great evil, simply because he wasn't a great anything. You can't blame him for being out of his depth. Most of us would be.

Wilson was a near-great president, who was fully culpable for making a great contribution to bringing about the greatest of evils.

Yer defending Obama's use of US Military Forces against a sovereign country...

I guess that means you're not against use of military force..

Yer just against it when a Republican uses it.. :D

Michale....

Even CW called such dancing "pathetic"...

By the way, FA/18s are piloted, not drones.. Who flew them?? Gremlins???

Irregardless of all the dancing going on, the simple fact is, Obama's position is untenably ridiculous..

There are many ways to bring democracy and freedom to the world...

Reagan, Bush and (to a lesser extent) Bush Jr chose the RIGHT way to go about it. In Eastern Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan..

Carter and Obama has shown us the utterly WRONG way to do it. Iran, Egypt and Libya...

Michale.....

Bachelor of Science, Bowles-Simpson, and Bell South. Here's what he actually said:

"U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops."
(aitch-tea-tea-pea-colon-slash-slash) middleeast.about.com/b/2011/06/19/is-obama-breaking-the-law-in-libya.htm

and

"By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non kinetic support to the NATO led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO led coalition's efforts."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/15/letter-president-war-powers-resolution

With the way Bush handled things in the region, we have a seat at the table in Iraq and Afghanistan.. We have influence.

With the way Obama handled things in the region, we DON'T have a seat at the table in Egypt and Libya.. We ain't got squat... All those billions and billions of OUR money spent and what do we have to show for it??

ZIP... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA... NOTHING...

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale.....

According to Obama, US assets are not in use in the Libya TOP..

At least, that's the reasoning he used to give the American people and Congress the finger and ignore the WPA...

Obama didn't "lie"??? Did he???

Michale.....

Oh, that's right. Everyone has A-18s and Predators. Never mind.

Who said anything about US Troops on the ground??

There are many MANY ways that the US can be involved and influence events without actually having troops on the ground..

And we demonstrate that we have capabilities the rest of the world can't afford to match.

Which capabilities are that. The run and hide variety??

Or the ability to make up completely ridiculous phrases like "kinetic military action" that have absolutely ZERO basis in reality??

Iran 1979, not intervening when our S.O.B. was kicked out?

In '79, Carter took a complete hands-off approach to Iran..

In '09, Obama took a complete hands-off approach to Iran's "Arab Spring"..

Today, Iran is a nuclear threat and the largest destabilizing factor in the region..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the logical and rational conclusion the hands-off approach is infinitely worse than the hands-on approach..

Fortunately, for the USA, Obama is nearly guaranteed to follow in Carter's footstep all the way to being a one term president...

At least, that's what the progressive pundits are telling me.... :D Time will tell...

Michale....

(We can't afford them either, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.)

It's like Iran never happened...

Iran 1941, installing the Shah when his father wouldn't cooperate with WWII plans? Iran 1953, re-installing the Shah because he was our S.O.B. and Mosaddeq wasn't? Iran 1979, not intervening when our S.O.B. was kicked out? Or Iran 2009, not intervening again when there were protests against the disputed re-election of Ahmadinejad, but with little or no prospect of any homegrown revolution?

None of them seems to constitute a warning against intervening in Libya on a "you do what you can - we do what you can't" basis. WWII was so far from the current situation that it's not even clear what comparison to make. The rest of the Shah's career happened under the shadow of how he came to power, and of the Cold War. Then there's non-intervention in a non-revolution, which can hardly be much of an object lesson about the consequences of intervening when there is one. Going back to 1905 or 1911 doesn't even make the list.

Not to mention how utterly cowardly a "Lead From Behind" strategy is.

Com'on, Obama..

Grow a pair, fer chreeest's sake!

Michale.....

No...

But I DO think that US Forces should be out there in such a manner to be able to influence events in such a way so as not to have them come back and bite us on the ass....

It's amazing...

It's like Iran never happened... :^/

Michale.....

This would be THE worst possible lesson to draw from the Libya/Egypt fiascos...

Michale.....

Let's try

&

http+amp;#58;+amp;#47;+amp#47;www.chrisweigant.com

Now I replace the plus signs with ampersands:

http:/&amp#47;www.chrisweigant.com

I note that there's a semicolon before the first two pound signs but not the third.

OK, that worked. To fully fool the software, you have to go two levels deep. For this example, I'm going to use "+" instead of "&" in what you should actually type (just so the autosoftware doesn't interfere with it). Just replace the "+" characters with "&" to make it work.

http+amp;#58;+amp;#47;+amp#47;www.chrisweigant.com

You could probably even get away with just one of them:

http+amp;#58;//www.chrisweigant.com

Contact me through email if you want any further formatting questions answered...

-CW

PS. Oh, and in [29], yes, it is always polite to cover (and close tags on) your a. Heh.

I think my comment code handles one level of translation, but not two. In other words, to post your link with the exact text you want might require you replace & and # and ; with character codes as well.

Allow me to test it. What you wanted posted was:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/07/11/the-wildest-presidential-election-since-1824/

right?

We'll see how that turns out.

-CW

Because instead of having it be a link:
http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/holyhand.htm

I had it not be a link:
http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/holyhand.htm

Ok, I'll spill. To get an URL like
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/07/11/the-wildest-presidential-election-since-1824/

I used character codes, like
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/07/11/the-wildest-presidential-election-since-1824/

And if this posts without moderation (immoderately?), we'll know that "hiding" the links really works.

I was re-reading an old article I wrote recently (doing historical research) and came across the following, which I thought I'd share. Search "Antioch" on this site to see the article I was reading.

[Obligatory Monty Python "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch" quote: "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."]

:-)

-CW

Michale.....

Ok, now I feel like an idiot. Counting to two? Do I look like I majored in math in college? Oh wait, I did.

Yes, I was referring to the fictional Jack Ryan from the Clancy series of books....

But how is that "singing the praises"?

If you have read the Clancy Series....

Hunt For Red October
Patriot Games
The Cardinal Of The Kremlin
Clear And Present Danger
Debt Of Honor
Executive Orders
The Dragon And The Bear

..... you would understand why it's very high praises to be compared to John Patrick Ryan..

Obama held so much promise...

Maybe our expectations were too high, I dunno..

But I, for one, did expect a modicum of competence...

I was sorely disappointed..

Michale....

OK, I should have said the noose around Tripoli. That may indeed become literal.

As for the links, you posted three links in one comment, and succcessfully "hid" one of them. But that still left two links, which is one too many. If you had hidden two of them, it probably would have worked. I've approved your comment now.

:-)

Michale [16] -

No, no, that's fine with me. I have to have the software do this check to avoid "comment spam" -- something which I am proud to say has never made it past the filters here! But that's why the filters are tight. If you want to "hide" links in comments, it's really fine with me, because anyone doing so is almost by definition not going to be spam. So feel free!

-CW

It seems I always turn every commentary into an indictment on Obama, straying from the original topic...

I will try and restrain myself from doing that in the future...

Now....

Bashi,

You raise good points...

I am not saying that the situations are identical. There are nuances...

However, the overall situation is identical. Innocent people are being slaughtered...

THAT should be the overriding issue.. And the US should apply that issue consistently..

To date, the US has not done so..

Easy to criticize. Not so easy as a political, diplomatic or financial reality.

Ironically enough, that's what I said to ya'all during the Bush years..

If Obama did intervene militarily would you criticize the right when they went bat shit crazy over condemning it? Would you support raising the national debt or taxes to pay for it?

Easy to criticize. Not so easy as a political, diplomatic or financial reality.

Carter tried that with Iran..

That turned out real well, didn't it? :^/

Ironic how Obama seems to be following perfectly in Carter's footsteps.. Same catastrophically bad administration, same approval ratings...

Obama will be a one-termer... Just like Carter.

Don't take my word for it.. Listen to progressives...

http://tinyurl.com/3us7rs2

Michale.....

Big difference between "egregious mistreatment" and the slaughtering of innocent unarmed protesters...

Funny how the Left get's all hysterical when a scumbag terrorist is the victim of torture, yet doesn't have a problem with innocent unarmed protesters getting slaughtered by tanks and snipers by the hundreds...

Where's the indignation?? Where's the compassion??

Ahhhh That's right. It only rears it's head if the US can be slammed...

Really? when was that?

Desert Storm....

Gulf War...

How would we know? We've never tried it.

Au Contraire.... We're in the middle of it now..

And the result???

Only 11% of Americans think this country is heading in the right direction...

Hell, even a Hillary presidency would have been better than where we are now...

Michale.....

So should we just shrug our shoulders and do what the rest of the world says? Should we merely try to without violence change the actions of these people, knowing full well that it probably won't work? in a word: YES

There was a time that America led and the world followed. Really? when was that? Not the 1-'s or 20's when we were the most isolationist major country on earth, not the 30's when we couldn't even get a law on the books saying lynching a person without a trial, not the 40's (we FOLLOWED long after Britain, France and Russia), Not the 50's (at least, not the countries of Eastern Europe, China, Thailand, Burma, India or the African populations fighting our allies in South Africa and Rhodesia), not the 60's (Canada and most of Europe provided havens for draft dodgers. Not something vociferous allies and willing followers would do.), not the 70's and certainly not the 80's. So when?

It's about the very realistic notion that unilateralism is a stupid waste of lives, money, and national esteem.

And howz that working out so far, eh???

How would we know? We've never tried it.

:D

Yea, really the only way to evade the moderation hold is to post the urls as text instead of links..

http://www.michaleisgod.com/and.is.also.very.introverted.html

becomes

michaleisgod.com/and.is.also.very.introverted.html

:D

You can post as many of those w/o worrying about it being held..

CW, please feel free to publicly chastise me if I am steering people wrong.. :D

Michale.....

"By my way of thinking, Obama is Jack Ryan without the National Security expertise"
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/02/08/friday-talking-points-18/#comment-1728

But how is that "singing the praises"? How much national security expertise did this guy really have:

Jack Ryan (born October 6, 1959) is a Republican from the state of Illinois who was forced to withdraw from the 2004 United States Senate race due to an alleged sex scandal involving his relationship with his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.[1][2] His eventual replacement, Alan Keyes, would go on to lose the general election to State Senator and future President of the United States, Barack Obama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(politician)

Ok, I do know it's the other Jack Ryan. And here's another quote from the archives to prove it:

"Again, referring to fiction, I see Obama as "Jack Ryan" in Clancy's EXECUTIVE ORDERS.. Neither of them are politicians and the status quo uses that to denigrate them.. But I think of it as a compliment.."

Now let's see if I can do this URL without setting off the moderation software:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/04/25/friday-talking-points-29-pennsylvania-fallout/#comment-2125

International resolve takes time to create; it doesn't happen all by itself, overnight.

Assad has been slaughtering Syrians for five months now..

How long did it take to start the Libya campaign???

The wages of war without international resolve speak for themselves in Iraq.

Uhh.... Bush had a much larger coalition in Iraq than Obama had for Libya...

Those pesky inconvenient facts are a biatch, eh?? :D

It's about the very realistic notion that unilateralism is a stupid waste of lives, money, and national esteem.

And howz that working out so far, eh???

Obama can't decide to take a crap without checking prevailing world opinion..

There was a time when America LED and other countries followed...

In the here and now, America doesn't only NOT lead, her leadership is damn fickle and inconsistent on where and when to follow...

Which is why the latest Gallup poll says that only 11% in this country think the country is heading the right way...

Eleven FRAKIN' percent!!!

And you think that Obama's way is the right way!??

Well, I can say with completely confidence that THAT opinion is in the minority.. Even among Democrats..

Michale.....

That's our President...

Leading from behind...

He's never met an issue he wanted to get in front of...

For those who claim that Syria is not Libya??

PM Erdo?an compares Syria's Assad with Gaddafi
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-254203-pm-erdogan-compares-syrias-assad-with-gaddafi.html

Apparently the Turkish Prime Minister disagrees...

Michale.....

The reason we have forces operating in Libya is that there was a UN Security Council resolution, and the resolution happened because the Arab League asked the UN to intervene. International resolve takes time to create; it doesn't happen all by itself, overnight. The wages of war without international resolve speak for themselves in Iraq. Syria is in the spotlight today because international resolve has coalesced, including the Arab League.

It's not about "surrendering sovereignty." It's about the very realistic notion that unilateralism is a stupid waste of lives, money, and national esteem.

Who cares how they plan to execute him? If they capture him at all, his regime is finished.

Unless by "quite literal" you mean "not literal at all".

The cost of NOT going in would likely be far FAR worse...

Michale.....

Syrian rebels asked Israel for help
http://thejewishreporter.com/2011/05/29/syrian-rebels-asked-israel-for-help/

Regardless, the fact is, the ONLY reason that Obama doesn't send aid to Syrian protestors is because of his re-election...

Nothing else is logical, considering Obama's past decisions..

And I don't believe for minute, that Michale voted for Obama.

You would be wrong. :D

You can peruse some commentaries from that time, if CW's archives go back that far..

I was singing Obama's praises.. I was referring to him as a real life Jack Ryan.

I believe my exact words were "...it was going to be a heady time to be an American".....

It's all there.. How little did I know...

Oh yes... I voted for Obama.

And, like millions of other Independents and NPAs, I am very disappointed in Obama and very VERY pissed off that he fooled me.

I don't like to be fooled...

Michale....

Some forces in Libya asked for military intervention.

I can't find reference to any forces in Syria that ask for mililtary intervention.I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I can't find it.

As for dictators killing their own people? That's what dictators do. Hussein, Pinochet, Assad, Samoza, Taliban, Mbasogo, ... The difference? Every other one is OUR bastard. The answer? Stop supporting a leader when he/she becomes a dictator. Stop intervening to place "American Friends" in power. Easy? No.

I don't much care for Ron Paul, but he's absolutely right about foreign military excusions. They cost far more than they are worth.

And I don't believe for minute, that Michale voted for Obama.

Oh, foof. The Obama administration simply does not control the American media. Even if it did, why would they be downplaying good news?

Because, when it comes to the Libya Non War, there IS no "good" news for Obama's base. Simply being reminded of Obama's Libya war is bad for his base.

And even if they tried, wouldn't Fox News jump in and report on the opposite of what the administration wanted them to?

FNC (at least their web site. I don't watch TV) has complete coverage of the Libya war on their main page every day. While not as extensive as Al-Jazerra, FNC is covering the Libya war and getting info out..

The rest of the MSM is not.

Make of that what you will...

Liz,

It's complicated. :)

To quote CW... Oh foof...

It's not complicated... It's quite simple..

Innocent people are dying.

They are being slaughtered by a psychotic dictator..

We should be answering the calls of a threatened people.

I firmly believe that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Assad threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives, then it's in our national interest to act.

Those aren't my words.

Those are President Obama's words when speaking of Libya..

The EXACT same rationale that Obama used in Libya, the EXACT same rationale that Bush used in Iraq exists right now in Syria...

Since our asset commitment isn't "all that" in Libya (according to Obama) the military assets ARE available to go after Assad...

Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is political.

Obama would rather see Syrians slaughtered than risk his re-election..

Hell, the US hasn't even called for Assad's ouster... How frak'ed up is that!???

This is leadership????

Matt,

When there's an Arab League call for intervention in Syria, then we can talk about intervention.

Oh, so the US now takes it's cue from the Arab League???

SERIOUSLY???

First Obama ignores Congress to suck up to the UN. He ignores the WPA and spins some BS fantasy that it doesn't apply.. Now he takes his marching orders from the Arab League???

At least we agree on one thing..

It ain't complicated..

It's politics, pure and simple..

It's the worst KIND of politics. It's self-serving politics.

Obama doesn't want to upset his base with another military campaign. He would rather see Syrians brutally murdered by the hundreds, rather than see his re-election chances go down...

This is NOT what I voted for...

Michale......

When there's an Arab League call for intervention in Syria, then we can talk about intervention. Until then, it's a whole different powder keg. Syria is not Libya is not Egypt is not Tunisia is not Bahrain is not any other country. That's the essence of realist international politics, and it drives idealists of every stripe nuts, but it's not complicated: Chris is not Fiona is not Michale is not Elizabeth is not Matt.

I would also point out that, like the towns and cities where fighting takes place, Moammar Ghadafi's name has at least five different spellings. The "G" sound is sometimes shown as a "K" because the first letter of his surname doesn't exist in English -- it's closest to a rolling French "R" but can be "G" or "K" in pronunciation depending on where in the Arab world you are.

As for why Americans are so dumb about the world, there's another nifty map in this presentation at a TED talk some years ago.

Why is Libya so important yet the "rebels"(every day citizens) are left to be slaughtered in Syria???

It's complicated. :)

Oh, foof. The Obama administration simply does not control the American media. Even if it did, why would they be downplaying good news? And even if they tried, wouldn't Fox News jump in and report on the opposite of what the administration wanted them to?

I think it's sheer laziness on the part of the American media, personally, along with the fact that they've fired almost all their foreign correspondents over the past three decades.

-CW

Why is Libya so important yet the "rebels"(every day citizens) are left to be slaughtered in Syria???

Michale......

The Administration wants in downplayed and the American MSM obliges...

Thank the gods for Al-Jazerra......

Michale.....