March 21, 2011
More stupid
As Sully notes, Republicans support the no-fly zone, but still disapprove of Obama's handling of Libya. Reminds me of when the American people approved of the Clinton healthcare plan, but not if Hilary's name was attached. Stupid. And inconsistent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A "friend" of mine on Bookface said He's such a WUSS! Lead, or get out of the way - and let someone else get the job done! As of today, O says we are involved in Libya not for any grand or noble purpose, but "in support of our allies". The American president hiding behind Sarkozy's petticoat!...
Conservatives want it both ways. Last week, you've got Douthat saying "don't rush in; don't rush this." Today, he says: "Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence…."
Liberal wars like Iraq 1, perhaps? Douche.
To the commenter: Get *what* done? "It?" What's "it?" What would you have Obama do, given that 1) Arab allies urge us to not take the reigns so it doesn't look too much like a US effort; that it *has* to be their own effort; and 2) rebels are *begging* for intervention just so they can get a foothold.
Far as I'm concerned, we did it right: no troops, no words, coupla F-22s...
"it" = "the job" in the comment. What job? What goal? What end? Because if you ask me, that's kinda what we just did...help the rebels and support the UN's overall mission of grounding The Colonel's forces.
This is just political BS and shows how inconsistent some people can be. I will admit I have mixed feelings about the current plan. On one hand, I am glad Obama took some time to make a decision. On the other hand, I would have liked him to have gotten more congressional support.
Post a Comment