Can We Drop The Charade That This President Acts On Principle and Not Politics?

[no limit]

With the action Obama has taken in Libya the argument once again is that this administration did what it did as a matter of principle. That principle apparently being that you cut heating assistance for poor families here in the states while sending our fighter jets and battle ships thousands of miles away at a cost of billions of dollars with absolutely no clear objective and no end-game.

It's great that Obama has a sudden disgust for brutal dictators (in some cases) because that wasn't the case just a year ago:

The administration has submitted a proposed budget for fiscal 2011 that included military assistance increases for Bahrain, Libya, Morocco, Oman and Yemen.

....

Under the budget proposed by the State Department, U.S. military aid to Bahrain would increase from $8 million in fiscal 2009 to $19.5 million next year, Middle East Newsline reported.

....

U.S. military aid to Yemen would increase from $12.5 million in 2010 to $35 million in 2011. Officials said Yemen would receive a range of helicopters as well as special operations forces training.

Libya would see an increase in U.S. military assistance from $150,000 to $250,000 in 2011. Officials said the rise would enable U.S. military training of Libyan forces.

A year ago we didn't see a problem with arming these brutal dictators. Now that it's not popular to do so we suddenly have a problem with them.

It is also curious that this administration is coming out so strongly against Gaddafi in Libya while refusing to do so in cases such as Bahrain where a brutal dictator lives surrounded by exotic riches on the backs of its citizens. One of the reasons for this must be Saudi Arabia and it's support for the Bahrain dictatorship.

And although Saudi Arabia has protests of its own as other middle eastern countries are having the Saudi royal family continues to be one of our strongest allies. When it comes to selling them weapons and helping them develop their military we are eager to do so. Yet Saudi Arabia has no problems with shooting at protesters, arresting people that speak out against its government, and it has no problems committing such atrocities as hanging gay people and stoning rape victims.

So the argument that what Obama is doing is a matter of principle and not a matter of politics simply doesn't pass the smell test. The fact that Gaddafi and the Saudi royal family http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165858/Im-king-kings-Gaddafi-storms-Arab-summit-labels-Saudi-king-British-product.html">have had contempt for each other going back many years including http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-10/world/libya.saudi_1_libyan-intelligence-officer-abdel-rahman-shalqam-assassination-plot/2?_s=PM:WORLD">allegations that in 2004 Gaddafi tried to assasinate the Saudi king is I'm sure also no accident.

The truth seems to be that we have picked sides in this fight, and it has nothing to do with principle. It has everything to do with protecting the interests of Saudi Arabia while providing political cover for the Obama administration here at home from republican attacks. Saudi Arabia would love nothing more than to have Gaddafi overthrown and Obama knows that if Gaddafi won this fight Obama would be destroyed here at home by republicans just in time for the 2012 elections. This kills two birds with one stone, protect Saudi interests while making republicans look like petty idiots (didn't think you needed to go to war to do that).

[Donnachaidh]

1. kickety kick kick

:kick:

[WingDinger]

2. Cna we drop the expectation that we hired Jesus?

Can we try for just one moment to understand that he does not work in a vacuum? That the status quo still exists when Dems are elected? Although I love Bernie, and Kucinich, how far do you think they would get in a general?

Were Obama of a mind to make CHANGE, he would do whatever it took, and get reelected, and do a lame duck turd all over them. THAT is how it is done in this backward country.

[no limit]

4. We had a lame duck a few months ago, how did that work out?

Sure DADT was passed (which we could have ended if Obama simply stopped appealing it in courts) and the START treaty was nice. But what did republicans get in return? Another huge trillion dollar tax break for the richest Americans.

I don't doubt there are political limitations this and every other president has. But I don't see how this president is trying to reform those limitations, maybe you can point me to it.

[WingDinger]

7. How much political capital should be squandered on trying to reform those limitations

Once momentum is lost, inertia will ruin your mojo. If we provide him Madison on steroids, you will get all you desire of him.

[no limit]

9. How much political capital does he have left after kissing the ass of corporations for 2 years?

What happened in 2010 anyway?

[bvar22]

40. We gave Obama "Madison on Steroids".

...or did you miss the inauguration?
We also gave him a huge majority in The House,
and a filibuster proof majority in The Senate.
But MOST importantly, we gave Obama a HUGE Popular Mandate for "CHANGE"
.......and it was squandered appeasing Republicans,
Reaching Across the Aisle,
Seeking Bi-Partisan Consensus,
invoking Ronald Reagan,
and thanking Republicans for their "Good ideas."

Obama had an ARMY standing in the field, ready to do his bidding,
and it was wasted.
Had he called during Tea Bagger Summer, Millions would have answered.

A Mandate Unused is a Mandate Wasted.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Rhetoric, broken promises, and excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[FredStembottom]

60. Thank you, bvar!

Nothing gets past what you just stated.
Millions of us were ready to go. We were enthused and powered up. We would have changed the entire political environment in this country. Woulda had the Hoveround Hitlers in the cartoonish "tea-party" for lunch.

We gave him a tsunami of support.

He gave us the finger.

Why?!?!

[salinen]

77. If it were allowed

I'd curse him.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. In Portland Oregon 70,000 people came out for his speech

Not enough, I guess. Gotta have steroids, like sports.

[yodermon]

21. Yeah. Obama's bending over backwards and the repukes are about to shut down the Government

ANYWAY.

Huh.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. How do you expect him to reform anything when, through our anger, not enough of us voted...

and we got MORE crazy-ass Republicans?

What you are asserting makes absolutely no sense.

You expect Obama to change, but how? There are MORE Republicans and cowardly, milquetoast Democrats in Congress, not less.

People wanted to "teach Obama a lesson" by putting MORE Repukes in Congress?

People want to force Obama to live up to his "progressive" ideals by doing what? Staying home and thereby electing MORE Republicans?

It makes no sense!!!!!!

[creon]

73. correct

It does not make sense.

We are in an era driven by fear and anger.

I have come to the decision that it will, simply, to be ridden out. The fear and anger will be used up eventually.

[bvar22]

78. Blaming the Voters is a BIG Cop Out, and won't FIX the problem

Blaming the troops for a Failure of leadership solves absolutely NOTHING.

It is Leadership's job to motivate the troops, to stand in front and say, "Follow Me!".
Blaming the troops WILL produce the same results next time...it fixes NOTHING.

The problem in 2010 wasn't Stupid Voters.
Leadership FAILED to give the voters something to VOTE FOR.

2010 is a classic Failure of Leadership.
Until THAT is addressed, prepare for MORE failure.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Rhetoric, broken promises, and excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. I'm not excusing leadership, but this is NOT a "Daddy Party." That's what I always

appreciated about being a progressive Democrat. I don't need a "Daddy Figure" to inspire me or tell me what to think. Sure, Obama could have exercised better leadership on some issues. Sure, the leadership in Congress were cowards for not putting forth a budget; or, not forcing the Republicans to explain why they don't want the rich to pay MORE in taxes.

However, to excuse the people for not exercising their civic duty IS the very definition of a COP-OUT!

It's easy to sit back in our easy chair and not do anything. Even if we were angry at Obama and congressional Democrats, we should have been out there like the wingnuts, finding progressives to run at the LOCAL LEVEL!!

Why punish good Democrats at the grassroots levels by not voting? It makes no sense!

That's our problem as progressives. We don't want to do the hard work. The wingnuts and Teabaggers are out there finding candidates to run for local offices. And what do we do? Angry at *FEDERAL LEVEL* leadership, we punish good Democrats at the *LOCAL LEVEL* by failing to get them to office.

I'm sorry. I cannot and will not excuse the behavior. The Republicans had a failure in leadership and they never sat back and whined on message boards. They got out and worked to elect wingnuts at virtually every level, focusing on local level races and putting wingnut judges into power.

We have to take *some* responsibility for our part, just as much as Obama/congresional Dems should.

[bvar22]

83. You can't FIX "The Voters".

You CAN fix Leadership,
if Leadership is willing to accept the responsibility.

Blaming the Voters AVOIDS fixing the problem and guarantees the Status Quo.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. If voters cannot be motivated to get out and vote, then we've already lost!

Sure you can change the voters. Conservatives have done it. That was the point of their Southern Strategy! Their hateful, racist rhetoric turned many low-income, blue collar whites into Republicans who vote against their best interests. Obama wasn't around then. And the Democratic Party did a miserable job countering the rhetoric, either due to weak candidates or a media that was being bought and paid for.

Tom Frank, in What's the Matter With Kansas--which ought to be REQUIRED reading for Democrats--put it succinctly. Because Republicans tend to run on "values," they have convinced average Americans that their ideas are right! Progressives have failed to counter this by explaining that liberal values ARE moral values! We got more "Reagan Democrats" because of it. So, absolutely voters can be changed!

To illustrate the point further, I came across this fantastic article in the Atlantic Monthly that basically discusses how conservatives are winning the game, especially and particularly at the local level by running MORE candidates and by convincing Americans that they should identify as conservatives. And yet, these are areas that tend to be the worst off.

HOWEVER...and this is the kicker: even in Progressive Strongholds, liberals are losing. Case in point: Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Feingold being defeated in Wisconsin. Again, Americans are convinced that conservatives have the right answer, even in places where Democrats typically win.

This is because, by and large, the Democratic Party has failed at messaging.

THIS IS NOT NEW!!! Republicans have always been much better at politicking than Democrats.

To blame everything on Obama is freaking ridiculous! This has long been a problem of the Democratic Party AS A WHOLE!!!

Here's an excerpt from the AM article:

<snip>

Conservatism, at least at the state level, appears to be growing stronger.
Ironically, this trend is most pronounced in America's least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states.
Conservatism, more and more, is the ideology of the economically left behind. The current economic crisis only appears to have deepened conservatism's hold on America's states. This trend stands in sharp contrast to the Great Depression, when America embraced FDR and the New Deal.

Liberalism, which is stronger in richer, better-educated, more-diverse, and, especially, more prosperous places, is shrinking across the board and has fallen behind conservatism even in its biggest strongholds. This obviously poses big challenges for liberals, the Obama administration, and the Democratic Party moving forward. But the much bigger, long-term danger is economic rather than political. This ideological state of affairs advantages the policy preferences of poorer, less innovative states over wealthier, more innovative, and productive ones. American politics is increasingly disconnected from its economic engine. And this deepening political divide has become perhaps the biggest bottleneck on the road to long-run prosperity.

</snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/03/the-conservative-states-of-america/71827/#

[bvar22]

97. At THIS point, I can only refer you to Harry Truman:

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

Again, Blaming the Voters solves NOTHING.
It is a whiny recipe for further disaster
that AVOIDS the addressing REAL problem.

Motivating the Troops IS a requirement of Leadership.
If the troops are unmotivated,
it IS a direct Failure of Leadership.

It IS that simple.

[donheld]

59. We hired the opposite

Jesus was all about helping the poor downtrodden. Obama is all about helping the very rich.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

5. Hate to break it t'ya, but that's a big parta th'job description

If we really want a US foreign policy largely emphasizing human rights issues, we can probably have one -- provided we organize enough people to devote the personnel and treasure to attaining it. Business interests can field thousands of well-paid full-time staff to push their agendas in congress and in the courts, in media, and so on. When we take our agenda as seriously as business interests take their agenda, we'll have a shot at winning -- but we won't win by part-time amateur kvetching

[StarburstClock]

22. "we won't win by part-time amateur kvetching" -- thanks for clearing that up

I guess the hundreds of thousands on the streets in the U.S. and millions around the world are all amateur kvetchers.

[struggle4progress]

27. Takin it to the streets is an OK start but much more is really required to win

You wanna win? Take the struggle as seriously as business interests do

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. Yes. The point I'm making here, too, is that we need a true grassroots movement at the local level.

The reason why progressivism is losing ground across the country is because we've got even disadvantaged people voting against their best interests. They are convinced that conservativism speaks to them.

Rather than simply blaming Obama, why not ensure that we run progressive candidates at the local level? That's what the wingnuts are doing and they are winning! Why can't we do the same?

[struggle4progress]

101. A real movement needs more than candidates at all levels: it needs people putting other people in

motion, to lobby elected officials, to produce media coverage of issues, to push regulators ...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. And what happens if the media is corporate-owned and therefore

refuses to cover our movement?

[struggle4progress]

103. The media has always been corporate-owned. The game is to generate enough

organized people-power to overcome the organizational advantages of the monied interests. Our side has always had an initial disadvantage: that hasn't prevented significant victories in the past

Look up the old Wobblie character "Scissors Bill" -- and don't be that person

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. O.K., but I'm afraid of Citizens United. We have to come out BIG in order to counter the Koch Bros.

[struggle4progress]

105. Of course, Citizens United is really really bad news for us. We'll have a long hard fight

ahead of us. The task is to wage that fight with a careful attention to actual facts, with a willingness to stand back up repeatedly after getting knocked down repeatedly, with an intelligent self-criticism that enables us to learn from our successes and failures, and with an adaptive creativity that allows us to change our srtrategies so they are appropriate for particular times and places

[damntexdem]

6. What charade? He's a politician.

I'm disappointed in him; but I strongly back him on Libya.

[no limit]

8. Then maybe you know something we don't. What is the end-game?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

17. What a simplistic statement to make.

Really, allow Libyans to decide their own fate? Do we have any idea what they will decide? What if they win and decide to implement a Islamic dictatorship that will slaughter Gaddafi supporters and anyone else that doesn't agree with their ways? You're cool with supporting that since that's what the people want?

[FrenchieCat]

28. The point is to allow the Libyans to decide.

That is the end game.
If we are on the right side for once,
it won't concern us so much as to what they decide...
it's when we are on the wrong side, that we have to sweat
and work to make sure it all ends up the way we engineered it.

Don't underestimate the people in the Middle East.
That's what most do, which is why they have been getting
fucked for so many years.

[no limit]

30. What if they decide to have a islamic dictatorship that will kill anyone in their way?

What if they don't decide anything and the place turns in to a drawn out civil war?

[FrenchieCat]

33. What if?

What if it turns out well in the long run for the people of the ME.
What then?

[no limit]

36. What do you define as "well"?

If it turns out that democracy prevails and we have a stable Libya without having to be involved in it for years then I will apologize to you personally for being so wrong.

Now you want to answer my questions?

[patrice]

10. Not until you establish that: were Obama somehow more consonant c/ all of those who agree with you

(as to the efficacy of principle in accomplishing whatever it is that you all think should happen), you all would be more positive re his efforts.

The whole issue of you and your friends' specific expertise on the individual issues + the matter of the relationships between all issues aside, once you establish that you are justified in your expectations regarding principle and are, therefore, justified in your condemnation of this president, and you are not, therefore, trying to destroy him for other, less apparent, reasons, I will consider whether you are offering one charade in exchange for another.

[no limit]

11. Any time you actually want to discuss the issues I'm all ears.

I'm not sure who me and my friends are.

Maybe you can tell all of my friends what the end game in this conflict is.

[patrice]

13. I see no purpose in that. You are the one making a proposition, so the burden of proof is yours. nt

[no limit]

15. Maybe you missed my post? Did you just read the title?

I don't know what the end-game is. I can't explain something to you I'm not aware of. If there is no end game why are we there?

[patrice]

18. Review my post, please. My reference was to the full spectrum of issues before this President &

to the fact that it would be absurd to assume they do not affect one another significantly.

I know that what we'd be doing if the other party had won in '08, or what they'd do (no matter how high an oh so self-righteous 3rd party gets on itself) after splitting off enough in the narrow margins we'll see in '12, WOULD/WILL be significantly different across the board on ALL issues.

[no limit]

20. Your post had absolutely nothing to do with my OP, you cast a bunch of cast aspersions

but that's about all you did.

My OP was about two things, the Obama hypocrisy on Libya and the idea that what Obama is doing has nothing to do with principle but everything to do with politics. You didn't dispute a single thing I said. Instead you went on to incoherent rambling about "me and my friends".

If you want to talk about what a 3rd party will do to Obama in 2012 or what a Obama loss would mean by all means, make a thread on it. I don't think anyone is stopping you. But I don't see what that has to do with this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

23. What is this "End-game" meme I keep hearing about?

There is a current "game" that needs to be addressed, which is NOT simply about
someone needing to tell you how the story ends, although you have already been told,
no boots on the ground, and the purpose for the intervention cannot be to get "rid"
of Kaddafi; something that will have to be handled by the Libyans themselves.

The only job of the International community is to give those Libyans some cover,
in order for there not to be a slaughter. This is a revolution, and we are on the right side,
IMO......and that actually DOES count for something, no matter how dismissive the Media and folks like you are.

In many ME countries, at this very minute, young people and older ones too
have decided that they are sick and tired of the decades of dictatorial shit,
and they aren't willing to take it anymore.

Their problem is that peaceful demonstrations are not respected by the asshole kings,
emperors and dictators for life. Many, since Kaddafi started dropping bombs have questioned whether what they are protesting is now possible. They witnessed what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, and felt emboldened, and then they saw the violent resistance from Kaddafi in Libya, and they became uncertain as to what the possibilities for change could truly be.

When Libya specifically requested the assistance of the International community,
because of their fears after witnessing 8,000 of their Libyan country people be killed by Kaddafi's
rent-a-mercenary army, that they might be next.

The United States, as one of the countries that make up the UN decided along with other
countries to see to it to stop the massacre before it became bigger than what we have already seen.

What does our intervening tells not just Libyans, but Arabs in all of those other countries where people are now standing up to their dictatorial governments? It says that they should go ahead and keep up the good fight, and that we are here for them, if they really, really need us....because we are interested in their Freedom too, not just their oil. They now understand that Obama is not Bush, and that when Pres. Obama spoke in Cairo back in June of 2009, he really meant what he said, and he is willing to take the political heat to make our actions stand up to our words, including his words.

If we would have just sat back and watched as Libyans suffered a certain death, what would that tell the Yemenies, the Syrians, etc...? That don't try for freedom, cause although you are confronting a power much larger and better armed than yourselves, you are on your own? That the US doesn't mind invading when it suits our purpose, but when it's about those people's purpose, we ain't there for them at all? Is the reality you support is to send the message that the Middle East can go down in flames, and if the last person standing are the dictators, etc..., then so be it?

The way I see it, this Libyan intervention is sending a clear and loud message throughout the Middle East; Keep doing what you are doing, and don't stop now. We support your right to stand for your freedom, and we won't shy away....even if Iraq and Afghanistan actions would dictate that we would now choose to retreat, and say "the hell with you".

In addition, the people in countries like Iran and Aghanistan are also witnessing all of what is going on in the ME, and our role now as opposed to what we had been doing. I believe that these folks are not going to settle for Taliban rule or theocratic rule much longer....considering that they now understand that their is an alternative, and they don't have to take that shit anymore either.

What Barack Obama is doing is change....for the better, for folks who otherwise had no hope beyond blowing themselves up for a cause or taking refuge for their rage in the extremes of religion.

You don't like it, and that I understand. I understand your skepticism, and your cynicism.....
But for right now, for something different....currently I care more about the possibilities of the positivity of what the ME people will now think of us, than what you believe about us. I actually don't believe that the War on Terror was ever fought correctly, until now.

You see, what I am describing IS the end-game, and history will write it that way.......once much is said and done; not so much by us, but by those who may, for once in a long time, have a say in determining their own fate....with just a little help from some nefarious enemies turned to perhaps sincere friends that appear to finally, after so many years, back what they preach.

[no limit]

25. An end-game is a meme? Did you think that during the Bush administration and Iraq?

You think they should keep up the good fight? Do you have any idea who "they" are? How long are we going to help them in this good fight for? Weeks, months, years? What happens if Gaddafi is overthrown? Who takes over? What if they start slaughtering people?

What happens if Gaddafi isn't overthrown? How long do we stick around then to protect civilians? Do we even allow that to happen?

Now I don't expect you to have an answer to these questions. But I would think that a president who sends our military in to action at a cost of billions of dollars would.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I didn't believe that we had a reason for being in Iraq to begin with.....

so I wasn't asking for an end-game then, cause there was no need for the beginning,
let alone an end.

What I do see is a contrast in the treatment of this President by the Media, and certain folks.
If Bush could have actually gone into Iraq back when the Kurds were being gassed and it was an internationally UN sanction intervention with No Boots on the Ground, I might have considered it....
but that's not what happened. And you and I both know it....as does the media. They were the ones who helped promote to no end the engineered stories about Private Jessica Lynch and the toppling of Saddam Statue. The media was on the side of Bush, even though Bush's rationale was never proven, nor did he act in concert with the International community or NATO. Now if Obama scratches his ass, they are asking for a fucking end game. Cute phrase, but with a nefarious intent. This should not be lost to those of us who have watched this media for years on end. It is not that they are NOW simply doing their job...because they didn't do it before for years and years. It is simply that they want to bury this President, so they can have the good ol' times back....when they supported a piece of shit that was always going to do the wrong thing.

As for the billions of dollars, Obama has decided that the ME is worth that, since we spend a lot of it there anyways.....this time, perhaps we can spend it helping those requesting it, as opposed to oppressing them while trying to take their oil...and so I believe that more than just perhaps, it is money well spent; finally.

[no limit]

29. You didn't really answer the main questions I asked you, did you?

[FrenchieCat]

32. It doesn't matter......

as I am not here to serve you.

But let me repeat:
Your concerns about things are less to me right now than those
of people in the Middle East. I have a cousin and his Muslim wife
who recently moved to Bahrain from France. They tell me how
they feel, what they have so far seen, and who they are rootin' for
and what many people there are saying about our current President
vs. our last one. I trust them. You, I don't know from Adam.

[no limit]

34. That's interesting you mentioned Bahrain.

Are we stopping Saudi Arabia from killing citizens there?

Like I said, I don't expect you to have an answer to the questions I asked you. But I do expect a president that uses military action to have those answers. But just because you don't have those answers don't give me this bullshit about how you aren't here to serve me. You decided to partake in this discussion, did you not? You should of told me off the bat you weren't actually interested in discussion, just casting aspersions. Then I wouldn't have wasted my time.

[FrenchieCat]

37. For you, it's all or nothing......

which is simple, and I guess if it helps you feel knowledgeable
about things....and hold a particular opinion, that is your right.
That's not anything I'm going to try and take away from you.

that said, I have my own rights, and I have articulated my reasoning,
and currently it appears that we have differing opinions on this issue,
which is perfectly fine.

Further, I don't think I need to discuss this with you any longer, as my posts
as to how I see things on this will stand the test of time.......
You can hope yours do as well, but the difference is that I see positivity
as to what this intervention will bring, and you see nothing but the negative....
I believe that I will be proven correct.....
and since only time will tell, we will just have to wait to see how history
plays out.

[no limit]

38. You would think that if you were so comfortable with your posts and the test of time

you would provide a clear statement on what success is and isn't. But for some reason you aren't willing to do that.

Have a nice day.

[Gravel Democrat]

14. "A year ago we didn't see a problem with arming these brutal dictators." Nailed k+r

[TahitiNut]

16. Do you know what "military aid" is?

It's like a gift card .... only redeemable at U.S. military equipment manufacturers. In effect, such "assistance" is granted to some foreign country which then must obtain goods and service from some US corporations. It's corporate welfare ... not a pallet of currency to be spent anywhere.

The 'argument' used by congresscritters (who actually WRITE the budget) is that it creates or maintains JOBS (in their constituency). It's very effective at doing that ... since the products have a kind of "planned obslescence." Forget the scam of automakers who sell a product that's engineered to be obsolete in 10-20 years ... or electronics manufacturers who sell a product that's engineered to be obsolete in 1-10 years ... the arms and equipment manufacturers sell a lot stuff that's obsolete as soon as it's used the first (and only) time. Then the market comes back and back and back.

Remember ... those who use such products the most often ... ARE THE BEST CUSTOMERS.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. A strong K and a strong R

[Carolina]

24. K&R

"A year ago we didn't see a problem with arming these brutal dictators." Says it all.

Meanwhile, stateside, where's the domestic aid for the poor and middle class?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

35. So how long are you willing to stay there to prevent killings?

Well I should say prevent killings you don't support. Because I bet you have no problems with our planes bombing the shit out of Gaddafi supporters as we have been doing.

[phleshdef]

48. I don't think we can prevent all killings and its not realistic to try.

But when we have specific data that indicates an impending mass killing, where thousands upon thousands are going to be explicitly murdered within a matter of hours, then we should act to stop if it we realistically can. Thats the kind of action I can stand behind. And its 100% in line with liberal values to be "okay" with standing in the way of genocide.

[no limit]

85. How do you know Saudi Arabia isn't about to slaughter thousands upon thousands in

Bahrain. Or maybe the government in Yemen is about to do the same?

I also love this argument that we got there just in time with only hours to spare. You really buy that?

[EFerrari]

39. WMD! Incubator babies! Gassing his own people!!!111

[phleshdef]

50. False equivalence!

And for the record, if we could have prevented Saddam from gassing the kurds, if we could have acted at that moment to actually stop it from happening, I would have been behind that. That isn't what we did. That all was allowed to happen and then after the fact, our government makes up some WMD bullshit and invades based on that. We didn't take actions in Iraq specifically to stop a concrete event of mass murder from occurring. It was the opposite of that in pretty much every way.

[TheKentuckian]

45. That argument doesn't change much If the region was urgent then they also could act.

Certainly the Europeans have the superiority to act without US hand holding.

I think action was required but as we dig it seems with the UN Charter not being self executing and in fact clearly spelling out that members must square away internal legal issues it would seem the President pushed the envelope rather hard here, at best.

You made a case why action was required but nothing on why the United States had to act. Much closer and even local forces could have leaped right in.

If the other nations of the world cannot respond then they need to start footing some bills or paying taxes and cutting programs to allow them to take responsibility in military matters.
We cannot be responsible to our own citizens by cutting our own haggard safety nets to fund Pax Americana and rescuing those under oppressive regimes (when it strikes our fancy).

[phleshdef]

51. It seems those very nations wanted our capabilities for whatever reason.

If they were ready and able to act without us, more power to it, but thats not the way it went down. Thats a whole other topic worthy of debate. It doesn't change the fact that I feel our actions were justified, whether they could act without us or not.

[TheKentuckian]

84. These other nations aren't funding our military and they won't replace our dead or heal or broken.

These nations have military forces and warm bodies.

How are justifying the actions to those in harm's way or to our budget? The pie is only so large, so what are you cutting to offset the expense or are just borrowing the money? If so then who is stuck with tab, I would say it is safe to say the taxpayer, so how have you justified to us that we are getting a return?

I support the idea of helping the Libyans too but justification is elusive on grounds of national interest or self defense. The legal process has been dicey, at best.

So, what we have here is a use of force based on desperate humanitarian needs, I find this understandable but it is a dangerous to set a precedent that says we can just commence to action, commit any level of national resources, and put American lives on the line because the CiC thinks things are bad somewhere whether other world leaders concur or not.

This isn't a policy, it is a reaction. Reactions are not justification for risking blood and treasure nor are requests since the US is more than a cover band. Nor do we have a constitutional dictate to play world police force, in fact I would go further and say their is no legal dictate whatsoever to play global police.

Since we operate under the concept of a limited government which means powers are granted to the government from and on behalf of the people and this jumping in and the Pax Americana stuff is well beyond any authorization of power and is as such a perversion of authority and our system.

[girl gone mad]

41. What?

Noooo! My illusions have been shattered!!

[JoePhilly]

42. What nonsense.

You might have a point IF the Obama administration had suddenly decided to attack Libya for no reason, kind of like Bush did in Iraq.

The reality is that THE PEOPLE of the middle east (and North Africa) are starting to stand up to the various dictators in the region. In Tunisia and Egypt, we could have jumped in. But we did not. Interestingly, MANY on DU claimed that Obama's unwillingness to "jump in" Egypt was PROOF that he was secretly working behind the scenes to keep Mubarak in power. Those folks are now oddly silent.

But a key element of Egypt, and whether we engaged militarily, had to do with whether the situation turned violent. The protesters avoided violence, and the Egyptian military chose not to attack the people.

In Libya, that has not been the case. Gadaffi decided that his best path to remain in power was to use his military to attack the protesters. The US, with the UN decided to not allow that to happen. And as of this weekend, control of the NFZ passed to NATO.

What do you want to claim ... that NATO is an evil entity?

The Saudi regime will one day fall. And its people will be the ones to decide when. Not us.

[no limit]

43. So we don't decide when the Saudi regime falls but we decide when the Libyian one does?

Saudia Arabia doesn't seem to mind shooting protesters in Bahrain.

I remember the Egypt situation very well. Most of the criticism was not that we should get involved using our military. The criticism was that Obama couldn't decide where he stood on the issue until it was clear who the winner was. He didn't once call for Mubarak to step down until it was clear to everyone he had to. But well done on misrepresenting the criticism of Obama on egypt.

I never claimed NATO or even Obama was evil. I said the actions we are taking there are not ones of principle but of opportunity. And I think I did an okay job outlining why I think that in my OP, feel free to respond to that any time you feel like it.

[JoePhilly]

46. I do respond anytime I feel like it.

We did not pick the date on which the Libya people would rise up. They did.

As for Egypt ... spare me. Right here on DU, even after Obama said Mubarak needed to go, the meme was that Obama was secretly keeping him in power. Right up unitl the second Mubarak dropped. The outcome is what we wanted, right ... but still Obama gets no credit, big surprise there!!!

As for "actions of opportunity" .... duh. The OPPORTUNITY in each of these cases was created not by the US, or Obama but by the PEOPLE of Tunesia, Egypt, and now Libya.

Obama's approach of only engaging when we have strong international support (UN / NATO) is the correct course.

And your point about Bahrain ... are they wiping out entire towns? Are ALL of the Saudi people standing up? Yes, the timing needs to be right ... we should not just jump in because we want to. The people of a specific region need to be taking the lead. If they are not, then no, we have no reason to jump in. And that is the current situation in Saudi Arabia.

[no limit]

47. You misunderstood what I meant by opportunity

Political opportunity to help out Saudi Arabia while making republicans look like idiots. Not opportunity in the sense that we were just begging to have democracy in Libya and we are finally getting an opportunity to.

Did Gaddafi wipe out entire towns? Are all of the people in Libya standing up? The answer to both is no.

I remember what my criticism was here on DU and I remember others. I don't recall a single person asking for the US military to get involved, you are misrepresenting this. Was there a few people here and there? Probably, but by far the majority of the criticism came from the fact that Obama wouldn't come out strongly against Mubarak. Many people might have taken that to mean Obama wanted Mubarak to stay in power, which could have very well been the case.

What do you think success will be? What will failure look like?

[Turborama]

75. Did Gaddafi wipe out entire towns? He wiped out a whole city, Al-Zawiyah

Warning this video report contains graphic imagery, including wounded children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkaAXDTLhsw">The Battle for Zawiyah


Alex Crawford, the reporter who filmed the above, being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about what she witnessed while she was there.

Part 1 "in this town, they are 99 percent civilians": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC4e0qbAs2Y

Part 2 "if that isn't a massacre, I really don't know what is": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymCYt-UP6XE

Here's the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/09/acd.01.html

If/when Gaddafi finally stands trial for crimes against humanity and/or war crines, Alex Crawford will be a key witness.

Third parties were not allowed into Zawiya for days until the 'cleansing' had been completed...

http://blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/rebel-graves-bulldozed-over-in-zawiyah">Rebel Graves Bulldozed Over In Zawiyah

http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafis-forces-erase-all-traces-of-rebels-in-zawiyah">Gaddafis Forces Erase All Traces Of Rebels In Zawiyah


Additionally, here's some footage of unarmed civilians being slaughtered when it all started in February.

Warning, contains graphic imagery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN9-55MstMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAtfvoneak

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12518710">Libya doctor: 'Protests spreading amid massacre'

Al Jazeera English: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=554439">Police Fire Live Rounds At Protesters In Benghazi, Libya (Graphic)

If that's not enough, do some searching on YouTube and you'll see a lot more evidence of unarmed civilians being massacred by Gaddafi's mercenaries.

[no limit]

76. Shooting at protesters = wiping out entire towns?

I can't watch video right now but I did read your links. What you said here can apply to just about any country having protests right now including Bahrain, Yemen, and others.

All this is absolutely horrible, tragic, and evil. But that is true of many places in the world and has been for some time.

[Turborama]

89. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Come back to me when/if you've watched the videos

They need to be watched before we can discuss it any further.

I support pro-democracy protesters in all of those countries. We're discussing Libya though.

[no limit]

90. If the videos show government forces shooting at unarmed civilians

as horrible as that is it is very similar to other situations around the middle east. And it does not constitute wiping out entire towns.

And if your idea of a discussion is to discuss Libya in a vacuum that's not much of a discussion.

[Turborama]

92. If you can't be bothered to watch them, I can't be bothered to discuss it with you

It seems like I've wasted enough time already by responding with contrary evidence which you seem intent on ignoring.

Vapid.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

49. Can we drop the charade that this President isn't being judged more harshly

due to his race? EVERYTHING this man does results in an uproar. It's getting ridiculous.

[no limit]

52. Yes, I'm one big racist.

Cheers

[ecstatic]

94. Didn't say you were... but

there are many forms of racism, a lot of it unintentional and subconscious. When Obama is being called out more harshly than Bush, it's obvious something additional is going on.

[no limit]

100. Ahh, okay. So I'm an unintentional racist. thanks,

Obama being called out more harshly than Bush? Are you talking about me? Or is there anyone specific you have in mind?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. I genuinely believe it would be no better if he was white. Things are that polarized these days.

[nashville_brook]

58. it's dishonest to suggest criticism of the president is racist --

and cheapens the charge of racism to the point of being meaningless.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. Bullcrap. If these actions were taken by Bush, the uproar here would be deafening. nt

[ThomCat]

62. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

So far I've seen a hell of a lot of criticisms of his actions and policies Because people disagree with his actions and policies.

The most frequent complaint is that we would have complained about these actions if a Republican was in office doing the same things, so we sure as hell shouldn't be in favor of these action just because a Democrat is doing it. How is that even remotely based on race in any way?

It really looks to me like you're demonizing anyone who dares to disagree with you, or dares to criticize Obama. That's incredibly petty, and it does you no favor if the time comes when you need to really confront real racism and your credibility is gone.

[pecwae]

64. Oh, please, what bullshit.

What's ridiculous is the charges of racism every time this president is criticized. This does nothing to forward the cause of those suffering real racism in the everyday world.

[bullwinkle428]

86. The real charade is this pathetic attempt to conflate "birthers" and their ilk

with those who offer criticism from the angle of genuine progressivism.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. He is in the end a poltician...so why should we be surprised when he acts like one?

[Keith Bee]

56. Has there ever been a President who has NOT acted on politics?

Unrec

[no limit]

57. I'm glad you agree. no principles behind his actions

[autorank]

63. Very fine post. k*r He acts on politics as defined by The Money Party

[pecwae]

65. Recced.

[Modern_Matthew]

66. Starting a war for political gain is a disgrace to humanity. nt

[inna]

67. Of course we may not, it is strictly verboten! Leaders are not to be questioned!!

[Bobbie Jo]

80. LOL

.... and the entirety of this thread proves your "point" :rofl: how?

again....LOL

[inna]

81. at least you're easily amused.

that's a good thing. :thumbsup:

[xchrom]

68. Recommend

[davidthegnome]

69. Good post

You clearly spent some time putting this together and have given the matter a lot of thought.

Some times though, I believe that principle and politics can both be served at once (in very rare instances). I will not say that the President's actions are (personally for him) based solely on either because I really just don't know. I'm not pleased with Obama, I'm definitely not one of his fans - I'm a reluctant supporter (to the extent that my vote will support him) because he's what we've got. Nonetheless, I don't hold much back in my criticism or anger for a great deal of what he's done. That said...

I think the move in Libya has MORE to do with politics than with principle, but not that the principle can be ignored or is not there. Yes, a large part of this is a charade, both National and international politics, frankly, are a charade. My hope though, is that while politics may have been the factor that brought us here, principle will prevail in the end.

I have no idea what the end plan or end game is. I'd like to see a Libya with a more or less democratic government that represented progress and positive change for them, I know it's not likely to happen. I think the involvement of the international community makes it more likely that we can actually accomplish something good and lasting here. Though, ultimately, it is the rebels, the Libyan people, who will have to make the important decisions.

I am certain of very little - but what I have seen from Libya has moved me enough to want action. If Obama, or if a future President were to do here what Gadaffi did there, I would certainly hope the international community would come to our aid.

No, it's not happening where it's needed more desperately - and that has to do with politics and greed that sadden and disgust me. But helping some is better than helping none at all.

Right or wrong simply isn't for me to judge, not in this case.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

70. I'm sure that not every action is a principled one, but to be fair, I think Rachel Maddow

did a magnificent job covering Monday night's speech and recapping on her show. She pointed out that Obama has not diverged from what he said he would do in the beginning of his administration. She even pointed out--and showed clips--that Obama said the same even while accepting the peace prize that he doesn't believe that there should NEVER be force.

He has been consistent whether you agree with his actions in Libya or not. It can't all be about politics.

http://www.businessinsider.com/maddow-obama-libya-nobel-video-2011-3

[creon]

72. not a man on horseback

Obama is not the big man so many people seem to be longing for. He is not the savior who rides in to save the day.

We are in hard times; and, a period driven by fear and anger. The TP, and other parts of the right, are driven by those emotions. So, are some on the left. I expect that, as hard times tend to drive fear and anger to the surface.


Obama is a mature, logical and responsible adult; perhaps too logical; too lawyerly.

There is no man on horseback; there is no savior.

[Turborama]

74. "if Gaddafi won this fight Obama would be destroyed here at home by republicans" What?

Obama surreptitiously started the revolution in Libya as a ploy to win the 2012 election?

And Gaddafi winning the fight against the revolutionaries meant the republicans would have destroyed Obama, and that's why he joined the intervention that France, Britain and Lebanon proposed?

WTF?

[Distant Observer]

79. Obama has struggled with what to do with fierce competing arguments

I think he was duped, misguided and pressured, mainly by French British and Saudi determination to take the opportunity to topple Gaddafi.

[sad sally]

88. Maybe it was the North Star legend that misled?

The most famous story about the North Star is the Native American myth explaining why the North Star stands still. In this story, a brave son Na-Gah tried to impress his father by climbing the tallest cliff he could find. Through difficult conditions he persisted until he found himself at the top of a very high mountain. The mountain was so tall that Na-Gah looked down on all the other mountains. Unfortunately, there was no way down. When his father came looking for him, he found Na-Gah stuck high above. Not wanting his son to suffer for his bravery, he turned Na-Gah into a star that can be seen and honored by all living things.

[amborin]

87. k&R

[Arkana]

91. Can we drop the "expectation" that we elected Dennis Kucinich

and not a guy who expected to do some governing?

[ReggieVeggie]

96. we elected Dennis Kucinich?

that's news to me

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. Nnnnnnope. n/t

[Rex]

99. I see he is talking with Daddy Warbucks.

Did he smooch up all on the Kings grill like his...erp...(I think I puked a little bit) his predecessor GWB? Ugh...I need a nap.