I love this paragraph from The Daily Beast:
The choice facing Obama is difficult. On one hand, any military action could alienate the new government in Tripoli and carry risks if the intelligence turns out to be wrong. There is also a risk that any decision on this front will be seen as a political gambit with less than a month before election. On the other hand, a successful special-operations strike or drone hit could rally the nation around the president.Notice the new normal?
Not a single raised eyebrow at the idea that President Obama would not be deciding whether this was the right thing to do or not in terms of ethics, the country, or our grand strategy, but that his election chances will be a paramount consideration.
What offends me is that liberals across the nation are still pretending (or worse, excusing) their incumbent President from actions worse than those undertaken by the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, military adventurism, and degradation of the rule of law, just because they prefer his social policies. As far as they are concerned, President Obama doesn't even have to show up for the foreign policy debate, because they really don't care how many Pakistani, or Yemeni, or Afghani, or Somali, or (soon) Libyan children get caught in our crossfires. . .
. . . and the idea that they actually give a shit about the death and wounding of my brothers and sisters in the US military in Mr. Obama's wars of choice is also wearing pretty thin.