Skip to main content

President Obama's October Surprise?

. . . sending drones or special operations troops into Libya to do retaliation killings for the death of Ambassador Stevens . . .

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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more