Ideological consistency: Obama/Libya, Bush/Iraq, Clinton/Kosovo

[bucs90]

Ok. I have to have some help understanding this here. I'm not as "interrigent" as the common left wing college sophomore, so I must ask for help understanding this. From 2002-2008, we saw some of the most intense, disgusting, disrespectful behavior from our left wing trashing our former president. Nazi comparison, demands that he be arrested, claims of war for oil, illegal wars, lying to the public, just all around nasty rhetoric, pure hate.


So, what is the ideological consistency here?

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.


Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

 

[Late2TheParty]

A lot of the criticism comes from libertarians and still comes from libertarians.

A lot of the nastiness comes from partisans, just as they attacked Clinton over an affair (but laid off Newt), attacked Bush over everything, and the same with Obama.

Are we to shed crocodile tears over Bush's treatment while ignoring Obama's (birth certificate, etc.) Who really cares.

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course the Obama polls numbers are up today.............

What surprise As expected.......independents are loving this and responsible for the Obama bump. Meanwhile, the left..........with the core principle spine of a Hershey Bar become suddenly two faced when THEIR guy takes us to war. Obama hasnt lost a single vote this weekend from his base.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is a really interesting situation politically. At least Obama isn't falling in with any generic party line.

Sounds like we are hitting Libya harder than advertised. We will see what happens for limiting our involvement. I must say Clinton did limit his engagements in both Bosnia and Somalia. Although the "win at any cost even if it bankrupts us" fellas use this as a negative.

Even more scary is the Republican stance supporting the President's right to declare private wars. I would figure if another nation suddenly attacked us like we are attacking Libya it would be a declaration of war. Honest I thought you needed something from Congress to do this. Republicans obviously don't agree. Democrats I suppose are more liberal in their Constitutional interpretation and don't agree. Interesting. Wonder if any Republicans will pick on this and burn statues of Ronnie along with Obama.

 

[bucs90]

Goes to show.......the left will support anything from anyone so long as they identify themselves as a left winger.

If Obama announced tomorrow that he hates gay people and issued an executive order to ban gay marriage forever........lefties would say "Well at least he's addressing the issue!! Bush wouldnt!"

 

[Toome]

Military operations have nothing to do with political ideologies. They have everything to do with policy. When negotiations and compromises aren't enough, you send in the shooters. Every US president has realized this.

The ramblings of those who think they understand political ideologies shouldn't be used as a political template. Reality is not so black and white.

 

[GHook93]

Get your facts on Kosovo. Kosovo was never a nation! Kosovo was the heartland of Serbia. The Muslim Albanians, Bosinians and other Muslims, streamed into the country and slowly but surely started to ethnically cleanse the country of the native Serbian population. What Clinton and the history books didn't tell you is well before Serbia responded Kosovo, the Muslims from mostly Albania were slaughtering and committing genocide on the Serbians in Serbian's heartland of Kosovo. Finally the Serbs said enough is enough and invaded to take back their homeland. And they did it with barbaric, merciless force!!! That is what really happened there!

Ok. I have to have some help understanding this here. I'm not as "interrigent" as the common left wing college sophomore, so I must ask for help understanding this. From 2002-2008, we saw some of the most intense, disgusting, disrespectful behavior from our left wing trashing our former president. Nazi comparison, demands that he be arrested, claims of war for oil, illegal wars, lying to the public, just all around nasty rhetoric, pure hate.


So, what is the ideological consistency here?

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.


Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

 

[hipeter924]

Get your facts on Kosovo. Kosovo was never a nation! What Kosovo was the heartland of Serbia. The Muslim Albanians, Bosinians and other Muslims, streamed into the country and slowly but surely started to ethnically cleanse the country of the native Serbian population. What Clinton the history books didn't tell you is well before Serbia responded Kosovo, the Muslims from most Albania were slaughtering and committing genocide on the Serbians in Serbian's heartland of Kosovo. Finally the Serbs said enough is enough and invaded to take back their homeland. And they did it with barbaric, merciless force!!! That is what really happened there!

Ok. I have to have some help understanding this here. I'm not as "interrigent" as the common left wing college sophomore, so I must ask for help understanding this. From 2002-2008, we saw some of the most intense, disgusting, disrespectful behavior from our left wing trashing our former president. Nazi comparison, demands that he be arrested, claims of war for oil, illegal wars, lying to the public, just all around nasty rhetoric, pure hate.


So, what is the ideological consistency here?

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.


Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

Clinton's supporters deny or otherwise ignore the atrocities against at least 500 civilians they committed in their Serbian bombing campaign.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Ok. I have to have some help understanding this here. I'm not as "interrigent" as the common left wing college sophomore, so I must ask for help understanding this. From 2002-2008, we saw some of the most intense, disgusting, disrespectful behavior from our left wing trashing our former president. Nazi comparison, demands that he be arrested, claims of war for oil, illegal wars, lying to the public, just all around nasty rhetoric, pure hate.


So, what is the ideological consistency here?

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.


Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

The problem is you're lumping all of these together, not considering that each one has its specific details that make it unique from all the others.

That is the source of your confusion, you have over simplified it. Remember, President Obama told us all, "Avoid the simple answer."

 

[Londoner]

Allow me to make an aside about all the bullshit regarding humanitarian intervention (no matter who is selling it, Bush or Obama): the underlying reason for intervention, whether initiated by Left or Right, is not humanitarian but geopolitical, i.e., politically unstable regions wreak havoc on global markets. [I'm sure you understand that the American economy is tied to resource markets from very dangerous parts of the globe. Do you know what would happen if a terrorist nation shut down the Straight of Hormuz or if American clothing brands lost the kind of cheap sweatshop labor that comes from dangerous places? Indeed, next time you're in Walmart, please read the labels on the products in order to discover that many of them are made in dangerous 3rd world regions which are prone to instability. Whenever one of those regions becomes politically unstable, the US government flies in under the cloak of "saving people"]

 

[dilloduck]

Allow me to make an aside about all the bullshit regarding humanitarian intervention (no matter who is selling it, Bush or Obama): the underlying reason for intervention, whether initiated by Left or Right, is not humanitarian but geopolitical, i.e., Politically unstable regions wreak havoc on global markets. [I'm sure you understand that the American economy is tied to resource markets from very dangerous parts of the globe. Do you know what would happen if a terrorist nation shut down the Straight of Hormuz or if American clothing brands lost the kind of cheap sweatshop labor that comes from dangerous places? Indeed, next time you're in Walmart, please read the labels on the products in order to discover that many of them are made in dangerous 3rd world regions which are prone to instability. Whenever one of those reasons becomes politically unstable, the US government flies in under the cloak of "saving people"]

The UN should jump in and stop America from doing that. Can't Uruguay do it next time? They need resources too.

 

[QUENTIN]

The left is outraged over military intervention in Libya, as they were over intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and Kosovo. Some on the left supported intervention in Rwanda and Somalia, but since then they've been rather consistently against bombing sovereign nations.

Your problem is that you're improperly defining the left and for some reason think Democrats are one-in-the-same or even part of it. Very, very few leftists support the Democratic party and very, very few Democrats are leftists since the ideologies and policies of the two camps are in direct opposition with one another. What you're talking about are simply partisans, who are inherently hypocritical because they base their support and opposition on what letter someone has next to their name rather than the content and substance of their actions.

By the way, three-quarters of the population opposes intervention in Libya. It's mostly the die hard partisans who support it.

 

[Londoner]

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.

Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

This is a fair post, not least because Clinton supported regime change in Iraq throughout his administration. A couple comments.

Every president uses humanitarian reasons as a context for intervention on behalf of US interests -- therefore, as you say, the Left is hypocritical if they only denounce humanitarian intervention when the other side does it.

However, comparisons to Iraq are premature.

Iraq was a full scale air and ground invasion for the purpose of regime change, followed by the reconstruction of the country, which included a lengthy, expensive occupation, followed by the maintenance of one the largest, most costly military bases in the world.

Libya, so far, has not risen to anything even approaching that - not at the level of policy, rhetoric, price tag, or deaths. In fact, the limited fly over and bombing missions in Libya resemble something the Left did not oppose when Clinton and Bush exercised this same policy in Iraq prior to March 2003.

If Libya turns into a ground invasion with a US sponsored regime change, followed by US reconstruction and occupation of Libya with 4,000+ Americans deaths and a 3 trillion dollar price tag (and counting), I think you will get your similarity. If you try to create a similarity when there isn't one (yet), you run the risk of falling into the kind of partisanship that so disgusts you in the other side. Have the courage to be as objective as you want others to be.

FYI: I want Obama to pull a Bush and doctor intelligence to start a 3 trillion dollar invasion; indeed, this might finally get the Right to be skeptical of Washington's war powers. The radical 60's Left turned LBJ into a 1 term president over Vietnam. The Right would never oppose their Leaders in the same way. Their knees weaken when they hear talk of Evil Empires and Evil Doers. This deep trust of Government has made the Rightwing voter very useful to bureaucrats who want to open our wallets with the threat of evil doers. The War on Terrorism is coming back in 2012 (when the GOP retakes Washington), and once again we are going to get 24/7 color coded hysteria over the shadowy misdeeds of retarded underwear bombers.

 

[bucs90]

So Obama is committing an illegal war on a nation that didn't attack us in order to stabilize the world's oil flow?

Good for him. I support oil flowing. We need it.

Lefties, you support him with me on this? 1 of very few issues I support him on. BUT, he better win the war. Ghaddafi better not survive this.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

FYI: I want Obama to pull a Bush and doctor intelligence to start a 3 trillion dollar invasion

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Ghaddafi better not survive this.

The death or removal of Gaddafi isn't a goal of the operation. He may well remain alive and in power after the smoke clears!

 

[bucs90]

Ghaddafi better not survive this.

The death or removal of Gaddafi isn't a goal of the operation. He may well remain alive and in power after the smoke clears!

I suspected that. After all, Ghaddafi is a good friend and financial supporter of Obama's mentor Rev Wright and Farrakhan.

If Obama wanted Ghaddafi gone, he'd have attacked a week ago when the rebels were winning. Obama is going along with this just to shutup the people asking why he isn't doing anything. Purely political bombings.

So, we're gonna leave Ghaddafi in power, where he will be even more pissed at us, and probably fund and/or order another attack on a commercial plane or nightclub.

Great job Obama. Thanks for nothing dipshit.

 

[Londoner]

So Obama is committing an illegal war on a nation that didn't attack us in order to stabilize the world's oil flow?

Good for him. I support oil flowing. We need it.

Lefties, you support him with me on this? 1 of very few issues I support him on. BUT, he better win the war. Ghaddafi better not survive this.

Not just oil flow. Flow of everything. The US cannot afford to let any region slip into chaos because this would wreak havoc on global markets (and lead to global suffering). (Do you know how much we depend on resources from dangerous parts of the world? We don't care about evil doers. Reagan supported Hussein and removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations because we needed an ally in the region after the Shaw got chased out and we lost Iran. We support bad people all the time if they protect our interests. In fact, we prefer dictators because they prevent countries from nationalizing their resources, and thus locking out our transnationals)

FYI: If we discover that peak oil is true, and that the neocons were motivated purely by securing control over the last remaining low-hanging energy fruit on the globe, than the Left should think twice every time they fill up their VW Busses. Why? -because they Right had the courage to get them the very oil they require to drive to their Greenpeace rallies.

 

[bucs90]

So Obama is committing an illegal war on a nation that didn't attack us in order to stabilize the world's oil flow?

Good for him. I support oil flowing. We need it.

Lefties, you support him with me on this? 1 of very few issues I support him on. BUT, he better win the war. Ghaddafi better not survive this.

Not just oil flow. Flow of everything. The US cannot afford to let any region slip into chaos because this would wreak havoc on global markets (and lead to global suffering). (Do you know how much we depend on resources from dangerous parts of the world? We don't care about evil doers. Reagan supported Hussein and removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations because we needed an ally in the region after the Shaw got chased out and we lost Iran. We support bad people all the time if they protect our interests. In fact, we prefer dictators because they prevent countries from nationalizing their resources, and thus locking out our transnationals)

FYI: If we discover that peak oil is true, and that the neocons were motivated purely by securing control over the last remaining low-hanging energy fruit on the globe, than the Left should think twice every time they fill up their VW Bus. Why because they Right had the courage to get them the very oil they require to drive to their Greenpeace rallies.

Yep. Great post. In 2002, it's true Al Qaida was a real threat. There was no conspiracy. They were a dual threat. A threat to personal safety, and a threat to global energy, which is the #1 resource for modern society. If oil flow stopped suddenly, billions would die within years. So "War for Oil" is ok in the regards that we (the globe) must keep it flowing.

I don't particularly believe in "peak oil". I think there is plenty. BUT, if it is true, how genius is it of us to refuse drilling our own until the very end. We'll be the only region of the world that still does have it's own oil.

If it turns out that peak oil is true, and that the right and left have worked in cooperation (while publicly fighting) to A) Get more global oil and B) Avoid drilling our reserves, then we'll look like the most brilliant society ever.

Sounds like deep dark CIA stuff. But that could be reality.

 

[jgarden]

Ok. I have to have some help understanding this here. I'm not as "interrigent" as the common left wing college sophomore, so I must ask for help understanding this. From 2002-2008, we saw some of the most intense, disgusting, disrespectful behavior from our left wing trashing our former president. Nazi comparison, demands that he be arrested, claims of war for oil, illegal wars, lying to the public, just all around nasty rhetoric, pure hate.


So, what is the ideological consistency here?

Kosovo- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Clinton attacked.
Iraq- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Bush attacked.
Libya- A nation that didn't attack us, but horrible human crimes occurred. Obama attacked.
Pakistan- A nation that didn't attack us, but harbored terrorist, Obama attacked.


Now, why is the hatred from the left only directed at one of the above? Am I missing something?

Just another example of conservatives "rewriting" history in a belated attempt to twist the facts to fit their predetermined "conclusion(s)."

The original premise for "attacking" Iraq, as presented by the Bush Administration to the UN, was the presence of WMDs - something that "bucs90" conveniently falled to mention. Saving Iraq from its "horrible human crimes" was a "fall-back" position only after it became painfully apparent that there were no WMDs to be found.

What's particularily poignant about bucs90's "horrible human crimes" charge was that the Reagan Administration was fully aware, but totally indifferent, to the fact that Saddam was using chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own civilians - Iraqi Kurds. It should be noted that it was GWB's own father, GHW Bush, who was serving as Vice President at the time, but that seems to have passed unnoticed. Donald Rumsfeld also served as Reagan's chief negotiator to Iraq during the 1980's.

I can only hope that "bucs90" will challenge me on these facts that come from declassified State Department memos from the 1980's.