AP Top 10: Politicized News

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.


Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:

1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????

AP Top 10: Politicized News

View Detail

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.

Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”

When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”

There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.

Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains

Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):

● Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

● Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

● Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

● Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

● Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

● Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

● Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.

Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

View Detail

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

I find the liberal response to Libya rather fascinating and I can draw only one conclusion: liberals are the ultimate unprincipled hypocrites. There is no other way to put it. Observe:

Point One: Winning a war does not make an illegal war legal. Nor have liberals ever accepted such an argument. . . until now. When Obama started this war, liberals rushed out to declare it illegal. Not only did Obama not have a legitimate reason (using liberal principles) for attacking Libya, but he didn’t even bother to inform Congress, as required by the Constitution. Had this been Bush, the left would have screamed bloody murder and would be demanding Bush be tried for war crimes. As it is, they just grumbled about the illegality, but took no action against O Duce.

Apparently, liberals don’t believe war is illegal, they just say that when it wasn’t their guy who started the war.

Point Two: All their whining about the invasion of Iraq being “illegal” or “stupid” is total hypocrisy. Bush invaded Iraq because he believed Saddam was involved in terrorism and had weapons of mass destruction. This belief was based on (1) statements by Saddam that he had such weapons, (2) sales by German companies of the necessary materials, and (3) a history of using weapons of mass destruction (like gas) on his own population. Saddam also was linked to terrorist groups, just not al Qaeda, constantly killed his own civilians, and even was behind an assassination attempt on Bush Sr. during the Clinton years. Yet liberals whined that Bush had no justification for “waging an aggressive war against Iraq.”

So what justification did Obama give for attacking Libya? Qaddafi was killing civilians, i.e. rebels, who were trying to overthrow him. That’s it. Bush gave that as a justification for Iraq and was still called a criminal. So what makes this better?

What’s more, The Economist, which always reliably toes the Democratic line, explains that Obama’s war policy is justifiable because:

“The West does indeed have a dog in this fight: if Colonel Qaddafi can be replaced by a decent regime, the forces of modernity and reform across the Arab world will get a huge fillip, which in turn will benefit the West in a host of economic and political ways.”

The exact same thing could be said about Iraq. . . or Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or Russia, or virtually any other country on the planet. This is a doctrine of limitless war.

Point Three: Liberals love to whine that Republicans politicize wars. Yet, they were the first to complain that Republicans caused 9/11 and that Republicans ruined the global Kumbaya-spirit after 9/11. They were the first to politicize Iraq, trying to declare the war lost and illegal the moment the bullets started flying. They also couldn’t run to microphones fast enough to play up Obama’s killing Osama bin Laden. Heck, they even made a film about it they want to release right before the election.

And now Libya? Check out this quote: “The president will achieve a tremendous military and political victory with Qaddafi’s ouster.” Really? So liberals intend to exploit this politically? Who could have guessed? And since when has sending a few planes to support rebels as they take six months to beat a third rate dictator who hasn’t been able to buy military hardware since the 1980s been considered a “tremendous military victory”? What's next, is Obama going to take on the Wyoming Highway Patrol?

Point Four: And what’s this crap about Libya vindicating Obama’s “lead from behind” policy? The US provided almost all the supplies, did all the reconnaissance, provided the ammo, did the refueling, provided all the logistical support and the headquarters, and flew the largest portion of the combat missions. The only thing we didn’t do was send our generals to the press conferences. If this was “lead from behind,” then it involved a serious reach around.

I’m sorry my cowardly liberal friends, but you are idiots. It is impossible to win a war without fighting it. And using the locals as your cannon fodder while you drop bombs from 35,000 feet is neither new nor noble. It also only works in certain very narrow circumstances, which all happened to exist in Libya -- small population, unpopular government with limited resources, flat terrain with no trees. When you tried this in Vietnam and Yugoslavia and Pakistan, you lost. I also can’t help but notice that Obama isn’t trying this anywhere else.

And another thing, I seem to recall the same liberals who are currently dancing in the streets at this great political victory whining that Bush “lost” Iraq because the country didn’t immediately turn into a full-fledged modern democracy because Bush never sent enough American ground troops to control the situation on the ground. They made the same complaint in Afghanistan. Yet, in Libya, it’s suddenly ok send to no American ground troops whatsoever and to declare victory before anyone has any idea how this will turn out? "Mission accomplished" O Duce!

Point Five: Make up your minds on drones, jerks. Liberals whine that drones are evil. Some even call their use a war crime. Yet, when Obama uses them, the whining stops? Hypocrites. And what’s wrong with drones anyway? This more than anything proves what’s wrong with the left: they don’t care that people get killed, they just want American pilots to put themselves at risk to do the killing.

Point Six: Finally, how is this supposed to work exactly? One of the big liberal complaints about taking out Saddam or the Taliban or any other dictator was that it’s pointless “because someone worse will take their place.” Indeed, when Bush talked about installing a democracy in Iraq, liberals scoffed, claiming that Arabs weren’t prepared for democracy and Bush should not be nation-building. Yet, now we’re told these Arabs will create a perfect democracy and this was a worthwhile goal to start a war. Why is this exactly?

Considering all of this, I am left with one thought: liberals are hypocrites and nothing they say can ever be trusted or taken seriously.

Liberal Hypocrisy On Libya

View Detail