About This Blog
Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton was asked recently about House Majority Leader John Boehner's critique of the Obama admnistration's continued pursual of war in Libya without congressional approval. Oops. I apologize. The Obamans say the Libyan war isn't a war. I should have referred to it as the Libyan hostilities. Oops again. The Obamans say the Libyan hostilities aren't hostilities either. Well, regardless of what we're doing over there, and I'm pretty sure it involves bombs (have the Obamans renamed bombs yet ? Maybe they'll start calling them "man-made kinetic community organizers"), Hillary had this to say about Boehner's opposition to the way Obama has conducted the Libyan...um...time-limited, scope-limited, non-hostilities level, NATO-approved non-war in support of democr....aw, screw it. Here's what Hillary said:
... the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.
That's odd, because I've been asking liberals that same question ever since 9/11. The difference is, I was talking about the legitimate national security issue of terrorism. There is no legitimate American national security issue at stake in Libya, but things have come full circle anyway. Now Democrats are the ones saying dissent is unpatriotic.
Let's take a ride in the wayback machine and see how Mrs. Clinton felt about dissent in 2003, when the President wasn't a fellow Democrat:
...as a U.S. Senator in 2003 [Hillary] objected to “are you with us or against us” rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war by saying, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
In other words, dissent is patriotic only when you disagree with a Republican. Dissent when a Democrat is running the show makes one a Qaddafi-sympathizer, even when the Democrat in question is breaking the law. Got it.
You may remember that Hillary was one of the many Democrats who voted for the Iraq War before she decided she was against it, after the wmd Hillary said were in Iraq, and her husband said were in Iraq, were not found in Iraq. That's when Hillary nobly stood up and took responsibility for the Clinton family's grave error. Just kidding. She did the "if I knew then what I know now" routine, but then blamed the whole thing on Bush. Ain't politics grand ?
In related news, The House Of Representatives voted on two issues relating to the Libyan Limited Kinetic Community Organizing Mission a few days ago.
The first was House Resolution 68, which would have authorized limited use of United States forces in Libya (hey, didn't Obama say we weren't going to do that ?). H.R. 68 was introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), the impeached, bribe-taking, racketeering, perjury-committing former judge who now faces charges of sexual harrassment. After Hastings became a known criminal, the wise Florida Democrat voters elected Hastings to the House for the last 18 years (or as Pelosi would call it, "draining the swamp !"). Despite the impressive credentials of Hastings, H.R. 68 failed to pass. It was rejected by a vote of 123-259. Only 8 Republicans voted for the bill. 115 Democrats voted in favor of using U.S. forces in Libya. Isn't it weird how the Democrats have suddenly become the pro-war party ? Weren't they elected in '06 and '08 to be just the opposite ? Psyche !
The second vote was on House Resolution 2278, which was pretty much the polar opposite of H.R. 68. H.R. 2278 would have limited the funding for the Libyan Violent Community Organizing Project. In other words, it would have defunded the war (I mean non-war) shortly. H.R. 2278 was introduced by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL). I look at defunding wars as kind of a punk move. If Congress doesn't want to be in a war, it should just stand up and vote to end it and bring our troops home. Defunding wars in general only withdraws support from soldiers already in the field. That is way uncool. This resolution would only have ended funding for the drones and the missiles, and would not have risked soldiers lives, but still, enough with the sneaky backdoor stuff. At any rate, H.R. 2278 also failed, by a vote of 180-238. On this issue, the party line vote was - Republicans voted in favor of defunding, 114-89. Democrats voted against defunding, 149-36. The Democrats were the pro-war party once again.
I bet liberals at places like the New York Times are really mad about these pro-war chickenhawk Democrats, don't you think ? We all know how they hated Bush for his wars. But strangely, we had this Times op-ed about H.R. 2278:
House Republicans are gearing up to vote, likely Friday, on whether to authorize continued United States support for NATO-led military operations over Libya. There are two main proposals — and a clear choice to be made. We fear they are leaning in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction.
One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.
They claimed it would do minimal damage to the alliance and its campaign because the United States would still be providing some support. But the damage to this country’s credibility, and its leadership of NATO, would be enormous. Any sign that the United States is bailing out could lead others to follow.
It is hard to view this bill as anything but a partisan play to embarrass the president. The one sure victor would be Libya’s strongman, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who would see it as a sign that NATO’s resolve is faltering and another reason to keep brutalizing his people.
Lord knows, the N.Y. Times wouldn't ever want to embarrass a President (unless his name is Bush), but wasn't "bailing out" the exact prescription Democrats and the N. Y. Times recommended for Iraq ? Now, all of a sudden, they've become "stay the course" supporters, all concerned about sending signals of strength, after they were ready to turn and run with our tail between our legs in Iraq. The way these people turn on a dime gives me whiplash.
Trying to find any consistent logic here is an exercise in futility. It reminds me of Orwell's book, 1984. One week, the country Oceania was at war with Eastasia, and Eurasia was an ally. Then the next week, Eastasia was the ally, and they were at war with Eurasia. No explanation was ever given for the reversal. That pretty much sums up the Democrats for me. At least I can follow the logic of the Republicans. They are against the Libyan War That Isn't because Obama is violating the law and acting like a Unitary Executive (another idea Democrats used to claim they were against right up until the moment they started supporting it).