March 23, 2011
— Ace I know there are some conservatives who have derided Obama for failing to lead in Libya, when a judicious application of Tomahawk missiles would have permitted the already-advancing rebels to swarm into Tripoli.
I know there are some conservatives who feel Obama is was basically acting properly by not intervening -- they take a "let them sort it out" position. They may criticize Obama for ancillary stuff (like issuing tough-guy bluster like "Qadaffy must go," then going golfing), but they believe that non-intervention is the correct policy, and have been consistent in this from the beginning.
Both of these positions are respectable (I think) and both have a good pedigree in the conservative movement. For every interventionist, there is a noninterventionist.
There is a one-sentence sum-up that everyone agrees on as foreign policy: "We must promote liberty and justice and defend the national interest, but we must not be the world's policeman or be drawn into bloody foreign adventures."
Everyone agrees with that, because it sort of says both everything and nothing at all. The real question in foreign intervention comes down, of course, to which of those two ideas, separated by that mischievously meaningful "but," do you most agree with?
Everyone agrees with that statement, but that's meaningless. The question is which part of it do you nod more vigorously along with.
I know where McCain and Lindsey Graham stand -- they are hawks and eager for foreign intervention. (Too eager, I think.) And I know where Rand Paul stands -- like his father, he is a skeptic of intervention.
I can speak politely with either camp. I may think either is wrong (or too ideological or not "flexible" and nuanced enough or whatever) but I wouldn't say any of those men is insincere.
But what is disrespectable and dishonorable, to me, is simply taking a position opposite whatever Obama is doing at the moment. That is just as much a hypocritical partisan game as what Johnny Come Lately military interventionists Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh are doing.
What is Newt's real position? I do not see any editing in these video clips, so I don't think these clips misrepresent his words. (We'll have to see, though.)
But it is unserious and partisan and cynical to urge muscular interventionism when Obama was sitting back and doing nothing but suddenly urging sitting back and doing nothing when Obama opts for airstrikes.
There was in fact a changed situation here -- 16 days ago the rebels just needed some airstrikes to take out Qadaffy's tanks and artillery and jets and they would have taken the whole country. At this point, the rebels may or may not win, even with Qadaffy's war machinery taken away from him.
But I don't hear Newt making that distinction, or saying that Obama let the situation shift in such a way as to now make intervention futile and therefore foolish. What I hear him saying is now that Obama's ordering airstrikes that he actually wouldn't have intervened before.
Which is the exact opposite of what he said 16 days ago.
This illustrates perfectly my basic problem with Newt Gingrich -- I just don't trust him. He is very clever at being clever, but beneath all that cleverness, what is real? What is genuine?
Is everything a game? Everything positioning for political advantage?
I do not know how Gingrich would respond to this -- I imagine he'll have to within the next few days.
It remains possible that there is deceptive editing here -- this video is offered by ThinkProgress. It is possible there is important context left out.
But, that said: I cannot easily imagine what context might reconcile these statements into something that looks like policy rather than political posturing.
Posted by: Ace at
10:20 AM
| Comments (226)
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.
"when a judicious application of Tomahawk missiles would have permitted the already-advancing rebels to swarm into Tripoli."
Great military analysis. Where did you get your tactics training again?
Posted by: me at March 23, 2011 10:23 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 23, 2011 10:24 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: ace at March 23, 2011 10:24 AM (nj1bB)
Yes, any conservative that flip-flops like that had better offer some context.
Or, we take the approach of some conservatives: The left does it, so we can too.
Fuck that. That's one reason I'm not a liberal.
I've long said I would rather lose an election with Newt than win it with a RINO. But that was based on the premise that Newt was a serious conservative thinker, and not another hack.
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2011 10:25 AM (9KqcB)
I thought it was Gnut? Much like Gnat.....only with a belly, promiscuity and white hair?
Posted by: © Sponge at March 23, 2011 10:25 AM (UK9cE)
OT: just should drop the news Liz Taylor died
Posted by: YRM (Anyone Ever Wonder What Y-R-M Stands For?) at March 23, 2011 10:26 AM (UzBwz)
Posted by: Napoleon Boned Apart at March 23, 2011 10:26 AM (Q5+Og)
That's not helpful to a certain unnamed Mormon.
Posted by: Which one of you morons put this bag of Snowe on my porch and lit it? at March 23, 2011 10:26 AM (F/4zf)
So, is Think Progress pairing this with Obama/Biden's flip flops?
Posted by: 18-1 at March 23, 2011 10:28 AM (7BU4a)
What's obvious is that missiles kill people, often civilians. Getting involved in warfare is more serious than launching explosive devices from great distances, then letting the rebels mop up. Sounds to me like it it might be more nuanced than that.
Posted by: me at March 23, 2011 10:28 AM (N4deu)
I thought Newt was making that case and the libs didn't get the "nuance" they love so much but nope, Newt just pulled a Kerry, "for it before I was against it" flip.
I watched the full Today show interview TP took the clip from. Nothing deceptive in their edit.
Fortunately I didn't consider Newt a serious candidate before so I don't have to stop now.
Posted by: DrewM. at March 23, 2011 10:28 AM (HicGG)
That's not helpful to a certain unnamed Mormon.
Posted by: Which one of you morons put this bag of Snowe on my porch and lit it? at March 23, 2011 02:26 PM (F/4zf)
Andy Reid on the whole Kevin Kolb/Mike Vick thing? I'm over that.
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2011 10:28 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at March 23, 2011 10:30 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 23, 2011 02:24 PM (UK9cE)
Yep. Newt threw away his chance in the mid 90s - and the only value he really has to offer I think is what not to do, both personally and politically.
Posted by: 18-1 at March 23, 2011 10:30 AM (7BU4a)
the politically prudent thing to do is to oppose Obama on everything unless he's doing exactly what you would do.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 23, 2011 10:30 AM (uFokq)
Ace,
I don't think it's edited. I was surprised hearing Newt today after hearing him a couple of weeks ago. I was just waiting for someone to dig up the videos.
Newt is a joke IMO and hurts the party. I don't mind anyone changing their mind if they tell me why they did it but Newt flops around all over the place.
Posted by: robtr at March 23, 2011 10:30 AM (MtwBb)
Tomahawk is a missile? Shit, I thought we were just tossing some little meat cleavers at the poor fellows.
Convene my military counsel!
Posted by: King Barry I "Piehole", Skilled In The Art of War at March 23, 2011 10:30 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: me at March 23, 2011 10:31 AM (N4deu)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:32 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: huerfano at March 23, 2011 10:32 AM (2pEj7)
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at March 23, 2011 10:33 AM (6IReR)
Posted by: huerfano at March 23, 2011 02:32 PM (2pEj7)
also, this. Who the hell is taking Gingrich seriously after that?
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at March 23, 2011 10:33 AM (6IReR)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:34 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 10:35 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 23, 2011 10:35 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: ace at March 23, 2011 10:36 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 23, 2011 02:24 PM (UK9cE)
Yep.
Newt threw away his chance in the mid 90s - and the only value he
really has to offer I think is what not to do, both personally and
politically.
Posted by: HoundOfDoom at March 23, 2011 10:36 AM (KhioZ)
I wanted a no-fly zone and to stall out the Libyan drive to Benghazi, at least temporarily, to give the rebels time to regroup and prevent genocide by Daffy.
I didn't initially start off bashing Obama on this until the fly-by-night nature of the operation got exposed.
The manner in which Obama has addressed this whole operation, including his spur-of-the-moment decision to initiate the attack, a lack of consultation with Congress, the waffling of the Arab League, the French decision to put a "steering committee" in charge of running the war, and confusion over whether targeting Daffy directly was a valid objective have convinced me that he doesn't have a goddamn idea what he's doing and that a lot of our guys are going to be in danger for nothing.
In short, it falls into my stance on Afghanistan, which is "Go hard or go home." Decide on the goals, make a strategy to reach those goals, and put everything in place to follow that strategy to a T. If you can't do that, then don't put our troops in danger.
/soapbox
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at March 23, 2011 10:36 AM (UvFnc)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:37 AM (OlN4e)
And if the Libyan rebels were worth supporting, why not the Iranian students?
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 23, 2011 10:37 AM (Z1jiu)
For the record, I am really opposed to this intervention crap. How many times do we have to do it to prove we can't afford it and that it doesn't work.
Arab's killing Arab's reason doesn't persuede me, in fact it gives me some joy.
Taking out Gadaffy doesn't perseude me, what do you get after you take him out? Either the rebels who we believe are terrorists or his son. Why bother, revenge? Fine send in or hire some assasins.
Posted by: robtr at March 23, 2011 10:37 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: t-bird at March 23, 2011 10:37 AM (FcR7P)
"This illustrates perfectly my basic problem with Newt Gingrich -- I just don't trust him. He is very clever at being clever, but beneath all that cleverness, what is real? What is genuine?
Is everything a game? Everything positioning for political advantage?"
- - -
Notably, I had the same reservations about Obama. I wouldn't support Newt for a national office for this reason.
Posted by: Flounder at March 23, 2011 10:37 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: General Barry, via Twitter at March 23, 2011 10:38 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:39 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Shoppy at March 23, 2011 10:40 AM (u2rWt)
Posted by: huerfano at March 23, 2011 02:32 PM (2pEj7)
Fine. Let's all bury Newt. So, who is the potential Republican candidate who can walk and chew gum at the same time, with sufficient conservative values?
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2011 10:40 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: dscott at March 23, 2011 10:40 AM (gaD9p)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2011 10:41 AM (eOXTH)
But Ron Paul - and Rand - is a "skeptic on intervention" now? Horse manure! Daddy Paul, at least, is a dyed-in-the-wool isolationist who opposes any foreign military activity - including even bases on foreign soil - unless we are directly attacked and a congressional Declaration of War passed. Sonny seems pretty close, we'll flesh out his beliefs over time because, like Obama, he was just too cool to vet before electing.
If Ron Paul's foreign policy had been in place after WWII, we would be living in Soviet America today, without any doubt at all. We would not have opposed Soviet expansion directly, through proxies, or used the CIA to stop them.
It is necessary at every moment Ron Paul's name comes up in relation to foreign affairs to recall these FACTS, because there are people who are attracted to some of his small-government rhetoric (NOT actions) who are unaware of what they are signing onto.
Posted by: Adjoran at March 23, 2011 10:41 AM (VfmLu)
Because he killed Americans in brazen terrorist actions. Not just Lockerbie, but his agents shot up a disco in Rome where American servicemen where known to dance. He's been supporting terrorism for years.
Yeah, I remember and yes he deserves to die. I just hate fighting a war to deny al-Qaeda a base country and then fight another to give them a base country back. This time with oil.
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:41 AM (OlN4e)
Bear with me.
Posted by: Knut Gingrich at March 23, 2011 02:23 PM (2pEj7)
snerk
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 23, 2011 10:41 AM (UOM48)
who is the potential Republican candidate who can walk and chew gum at the same time, with sufficient conservative values?
Dunno, but it sure as fuck ain't Gingrich.
Posted by: meekrob at March 23, 2011 10:42 AM (pSv+9)
Posted by: Newt Gingrich at March 23, 2011 10:42 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2011 02:41 PM (eOXTH)
They just passed a law that will pave the way for the MO Bros. to be elected in June.
Posted by: robtr at March 23, 2011 10:42 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 10:42 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 23, 2011 10:43 AM (4ZxEW)
Posted by: Chickenhawk Obama at March 23, 2011 10:43 AM (AZGON)
At least Paul Lynde was funny.
Not really. He was gay, which back then was amusing.
It's still funny to me! I'm gay, you know.
Posted by: Ant at March 23, 2011 10:43 AM (pSv+9)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2011 10:44 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:44 AM (AZGON)
what is going on in egypt...or have we been there done that?
Egypt is now a vibrant, peace-loving liberal democracy, famous for its fine chocolates, like Belgium.
Now shut up.
Posted by: King Barry I "Piehole" at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Karenm at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (inzhm)
>>> I could tell you, but then this thread becomes a flame war.
Lets have it then.
The name I mean.
Posted by: Roadking at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (gdzvN)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (c5RQr)
Posted by: Monty at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Scoob at March 23, 2011 10:45 AM (T7+JL)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2011 02:44 PM (eOXTH)
Yeah I know, I always say he's nuts and I believe that. He usually turns out to be right though.
Posted by: robtr at March 23, 2011 10:46 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Scoob at March 23, 2011 10:46 AM (T7+JL)
Posted by: Karenm at March 23, 2011 02:45 PM (inzhm)
Dead nuts on my screen.
/pardon the engineering term.
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:46 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 10:46 AM (g6nyw)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2011 10:47 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Dan at March 23, 2011 10:48 AM (mXBxH)
who is the potential Republican candidate who can walk and chew gum at the same time, with sufficient conservative values?
Dunno, but it sure as fuck ain't Gingrich.
Posted by: meekrob at March 23, 2011 02:42 PM (pSv+9)
True. (Sadly. Not too long ago I would have personally drafted the dude myself.)
But, I'm not going into another election with a GOP candidate who has to use flash cards to get up to speed on what conservatives think.
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2011 10:48 AM (9KqcB)
And speaking of newts, I saw one on the front porch today. It ran away and hid under a planter.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 23, 2011 10:48 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:49 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:49 AM (AZGON)
He may as well not even come to SC because he get zero here.
Posted by: Vic at March 23, 2011 10:51 AM (M9Ie6)
Gingrich is powerless; Obama can ruin everything ( and is in the process of doing just that )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at March 23, 2011 10:51 AM (UqKQV)
5th grade was like your personal 9/11?
This illustrates perfectly my basic problem with Newt Gingrich -- I just don't trust him. He is very clever at being clever, but beneath all that cleverness, what is real? What is genuine?
Nothing. He is just dust and air, at least he is to me after his pow-wow with Pelousi on the couch.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 23, 2011 10:51 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:52 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Vic at March 23, 2011 10:52 AM (M9Ie6)
Is this good on kung pao chicken?
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 02:49 PM (AZGON)
Quick cure for priapism - so I hear.
Posted by: Roadking at March 23, 2011 10:52 AM (gdzvN)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 10:52 AM (TATbF)
A. Newt, you will never, ever, EVER be President. Give. It. Up.
B. Remember the whole chickenhawk train of ....ummm...."logic" from the libtards? Is this train of ....ummm...."logic" still applicable? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about that, too?
C. The person who can tell me what our actual policy is regarding Libya gets a shiny red apple since "Qadaffi must go" does not mean "regime change."
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 23, 2011 10:53 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: justin cord at March 23, 2011 10:53 AM (6UTk5)
Totally am in synch with this post, but it's interesting. What Newt is doing is the same stuff liberals do over and over and over again. They demagogue, second guess, flip-flop depending on what works at the time to score political points, all that good stuff. They do so because they have learned that the MSM will not point out the inconsistencies, and will in fact, provide cover fire for them as liberals.
My guess is that Newt is taking this same kind of cheap shot, banking on not really getting called to task for it.
Posted by: RM at March 23, 2011 10:54 AM (TRsME)
We need The Donald.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 02:52 PM (TATbF)
Bu God, I think you've sold me. Pics?
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:54 AM (OlN4e)
A senior member of al Qaida urged Libyan rebels to continue their fight against Muammar Gaddafi and warned of the consequences of defeat, in a videotaped message posted on Jihadi websites, the Qatar-based Gulf News reported on Sunday. http://tinyurl.com/4kcav69
We're now allies with Al Qaeda. Well played, Barry. Well played.
Posted by: Cicero at March 23, 2011 10:54 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 23, 2011 10:54 AM (/G5LI)
We need a robber baron with great hair and a Ukrainian sexbot with tits like five gallons of handcrafted vanilla ice cream.
Wow. You think Trump's hair is great? Really?
Posted by: meekrob at March 23, 2011 10:55 AM (pSv+9)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:55 AM (AZGON)
I don't think that it is obvious that a few Tomahawks would have ensured a rebel victory. Tomahawks are not anti-tank weapons; they are not usually used against artillery. So what would they have been used against? C&C certainly. But a few A-10s would have helped the rebels far more than the destruction of the ministry of defense building and some communications infrastructure.
If we were serious about this endeavor we should have gone in three weeks ago and destroyed Qaddafi's armor and artillery. Then it would have been a fair fight.
And just to be clear, I supported this -- but for very different reasons. I am under no illusions as to the make-up of the rebels. We should have done this to make sure that Qaddafi paid for the murders of 250+ Americans over Lockerbie -- preferably by hanging from the tallest lamp post in Tripoli.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2011 10:56 AM (LH6ir)
For all that I'm not particularly bestirred by this latest schtick, Newt's a politician to the core and I'm with Ace re: never feeling "right" about him. His recent claim that his serial divorces stemmed from working so hard for America did nothing to further endear him to me. Count me as another vote for Newt Go Away 2012.
Posted by: societyis2blame at March 23, 2011 10:56 AM (srV3y)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 10:57 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 02:42 PM (Fw2Gg)
OH HERE WE GO
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at March 23, 2011 10:57 AM (6IReR)
I mean, really. The only thing Romney wins on is a debate about hairspray.
And Pawlenty? He sounds like Mr. Rodger's brother. Frankly it would be unfair. Like beat-up-the-mentally-disabled unfair.
Posted by: Marcus at March 23, 2011 10:58 AM (CHrmZ)
The problem with an anti-American in the WH is that it pretty much guarantees that the Anti-American sect in Libya will have the power when all is said and done.
Just look at Egypt.
I really believe that is why Obomba never spoke out for the people of Iran. Iran's 'leaders' hate America and he is fine with that.
If Bush had done this (yeah, he would have acted weeks earlier, if he even needed too, because he was strong and our enemies knew this) you could be sure that they were working behind the scenes for a pro-American (as much as there can be given it is Libya) sect in power when all was said and done.
Obomba will always/has always come done on the side of our enemies.
I really wish Hillary would start letting her people leak documents etc that shows why she hates her job. I know Clinton's love power and money, but part of them is still (maybe a small part) still loves America. Maybe she is waiting for 2012.
Posted by: momma at March 23, 2011 10:58 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Chickenhawk Obama at March 23, 2011 10:58 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 10:59 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: polynikes at March 23, 2011 11:00 AM (yKP4s)
We don't need values. We need a robber baron with great hair and a Ukrainian sexbot with tits like five gallons of handcrafted vanilla ice cream.
We need The Donald.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 02:52 PM (TATbF)
Fuck that Jeff - I'll write you in before I would vote for that clown.
Vote Jeff and Walk Away.
Posted by: Roadking at March 23, 2011 11:00 AM (gdzvN)
Megyn Kelly's coming up with pics of Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties.
Hope she realizes they didn't Photoshop her out before showing them..
Posted by: Marcus at March 23, 2011 11:00 AM (CHrmZ)
Anything interesting happen while I was Central America?
Posted by: Field Marshal Snaphook McMulligan at March 23, 2011 02:49 PM (u2rWt)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 23, 2011 11:00 AM (UOM48)
Right after Katrina, he was on Fox pushing for Bush to do a Marshall Plan for the Gulf Coast (massive injection of federal money). He went on and on about how this could re-do their infrastructure and help their economy, like we did with Europe after WWII.
The following summer, he was back on Fox talking about the corruption, theft, and waste with the Katrina money. And then he said "This is what you get when the federal government undertakes such massive programs. It should have been done by private charities."
So, I wrote him off as a poseur who says what will get him a spot on TV. It's also how he wound up on that sofa with Pelosi. He's an opportunist and has no firm convictions.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2011 11:01 AM (Fo83G)
Well Ace on this we can agree. Newt is not presidential material.
(Would you expect anything else from a man that could lie to two wives, daily?)
Posted by: unseen at March 23, 2011 11:01 AM (aVGmX)
We have to be careful- the public will almost always "rally around the flag" once the military is engaged. No matter how badly Obama has bungled the execution, it's probably going to be a losing argument to suggest that we shouldn't have intervened against a Bad Guy doing very bad things.
We should be focusing on asking the questions that the Obama administration hasn't yet answered. Are we going to stay until Qaddafi is deposed or not? Exactly who the fuck is even in charge? Who are the rebels? What specifically is our goal? Was it too much to ask that Obama interrupt his perpetual vacation to come home beforehand?
Publicly the GOP should be supporting the decision to attack Qaddafi, but criticizing his handling of it- and there's plenty there to criticize.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 23, 2011 11:01 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 23, 2011 11:01 AM (2n5kn)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 23, 2011 11:01 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 11:02 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:02 AM (AZGON)
Nothing sadder than a politician past his career expiration date. Seriously, he thinks this kind of swing-in-the-wind stuff on a Big-3 show is good and helpful, how exactly?
That alone brings his judgement into question, forget the positions in question...
Posted by: DarkLord's patience is exhausted! at March 23, 2011 11:02 AM (GBXon)
Just installed Foxfire 4.0. It is Hot and Fast.
AoSHQ comes up immediately, instead of the usual pause.
If you are running Foxfire, upgrade to 4.0
Posted by: Kemp at March 23, 2011 11:04 AM (JpFM9)
>>> Good for another 400 comments.
Great, now Ace can take the rest of the day off if he wants.
Did he put you up to this?
Posted by: Roadking at March 23, 2011 11:04 AM (gdzvN)
Palin is unelectable.
You heard it here first, gentlemen.
Posted by: Mitt Romney, Mad Scientist in the Laboratory of Democracy at March 23, 2011 11:04 AM (QKKT0)
in theory.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 23, 2011 03:03 PM (uFokq)
Ah, so Gingrich is French?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2011 11:04 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Barrackin' Hissy O'bama at March 23, 2011 11:05 AM (2n5kn)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 11:05 AM (OlN4e)
Good for another 400 comments.
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 03:02 PM (AZGON)
She might be, she wanted the no fly 3 weeks ago. Each day it looks more and more like the rebels are actually terrorists.
If we are being attacked or our people are threatened I am all in for doing something about it.
If it's Arab on Arab violence I am for sitting back and enjoying it for awhile.
Posted by: robtr at March 23, 2011 11:05 AM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 11:06 AM (OW0nw)
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 11:08 AM (OlN4e)
All his ideas work...
in theory.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 23, 2011 03:03 PM (uFokq)
Ah, so Gingrich is French?
No, Soothsayer's formulation is Russian.
For them to be French, all the ideas have to work in theory...
and sneer.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 23, 2011 11:08 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:08 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 23, 2011 11:08 AM (oSMOM)
Posted by: shillelagh at March 23, 2011 11:09 AM (Oz4Bj)
That's where I am. There was a window of opportunity just after the Egypt Affair where we could have provided flyover-cover for the "rebels" and could have nudged the tyrant out of power or helped in his assassination (or skipped it altogether and done a decapitation strike ourselves) and been out of there. If the new guy gets in and bothers us, we take him out. And so on. No need for break-it-own-it policy.
Now, the Obama Dither™ has ensured that we get sucked in with no easy way out. His inexperience (or some protective reflex of his of that particular leader due to friends of Qaddafi) will cost us money, prestige, control, lives, etc.
But we'll get nice, archival footage of Rio, so we still have that going for us.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 23, 2011 11:09 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:09 AM (AZGON)
C. The person who can tell me what our actual policy is regarding Libya gets a shiny red apple since "Qadaffi must go" does not mean "regime change."
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is my firm belief that deep inside every burqa is a Jane Fonda waiting to get out, and that benefits America.
Now watch this shank.
Posted by: Snaphook McMulligan at March 23, 2011 11:10 AM (u2rWt)
Am I the only one who thinks that the only reason Newt is flirting with a run (again) is to bolster his visibility and speaking fees?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 23, 2011 11:10 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 11:10 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (AZGON)
memo to Libyan al Qaeda revolutionaries...
Posted by: by any other name at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (H+LJc)
Completely O/T
Just installed Foxfire 4.0. It is Hot and Fast.
AoSHQ comes up immediately, instead of the usual pause.
If you are running Foxfire, upgrade to 4.0
Posted by: Kemp at March 23, 2011 03:04 PM (JpFM9)
Unfortunately, the newest version usually shits the bed with my add-ons. That's why I normally wait awhile to upgrade.Posted by: Ed Anger at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (7+pP9)
Ace wrote:
"It remains possible that there is deceptive editing here -- this video is offered by ThinkProgress. It is possible there is important context left out."
Uh, gee, ya think? What? Didn't have a Dave Weigel article to link to? You're now willing to give Think Progess the benefit of the doubt? Maybe they might have manipulated the video? Christ. We really are doomed.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (/f9MS)
And Trump must not own any mirrors, or he would know he is wearing a badger on his head.
Meh. It's a living.
Posted by: The honey badger on the Donald's head at March 23, 2011 11:11 AM (GBXon)
I know there are some conservatives who have derided Obama for failing to lead in Libya, when a judicious application of Tomahawk missiles would have permitted the already-advancing rebels to swarm into Tripoli.
The problem with that is that it would be an act of war without any sort of Authorization of the Use of Force. Libya isn't currently, and so far as I know, not a immediate or even medium or long range terrorist threat, and was not involved in the 9/11 attacks where there may be such authorization - and I read that authorization as being aimed at the Taliban and al Queda and not the Government of Libya.
The Won is the President, and while he has wide latitude with regard to foreign military policy, he doesn't have the authority to get us in a hot shooting war with a sovereign nation just because. Only Congress can do that.
And the next time a lefty tells you that Booosh got us into war! say no, Congress told him to go to war.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 23, 2011 11:12 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:13 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 11:13 AM (Fw2Gg)
memo to Libyan al Qaeda revolutionaries...
Posted by: by any other name at March 23, 2011 03:11 PM (H+LJc)
Chelrin, kin ewe say Quagmire?
Posted by: maddogg at March 23, 2011 11:13 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: William at March 23, 2011 11:13 AM (77TeU)
Only if we promise not to blast him into space until such time as we go weary of him.
Posted by: Vic at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (M9Ie6)
And Trump must not own any mirrors, or he would know he is wearing a badger on his head.
Meh. It's a living.
The ultimate honey badger I don't give a shit job.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: blaster at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (Fw2Gg)
She might be, she wanted the no fly 3 weeks ago. Each day it looks more and more like the rebels are actually terrorists.
I don't know about unelectable (anyone who's name doesn't include "Obama" is looking pretty good) but this uninformed call really doesn't help. I don't think everything I disagree with is a complete disqualifier (aside from Romneycare), but I'm not encouraged by anyone who's getting swept up in Arab Spring Fever.
Okay, it's not a disqualifier because it would seem to leave me with friggin' Ron Paul, so no.
Posted by: Methos at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (uqJo6)
You're now willing to give Think Progess the benefit of the doubt?
Think Progress vs. Newt
Kinda dead even on the credibility front, I would say.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 23, 2011 11:14 AM (UO6+e)
All his ideas work...
in theory.
Posted by: Soothsayer at March 23, 2011 03:03 PM (uFokq)
The funniest Newt story I've heard was by Medved, who heard it from one of Newt's assistants back when he had to move from one office to another (either when he became the Speaker or afterward). There were two large transfile boxes to be moved: One had "Ideas" marked on it and the other had "Really Big Ideas" written.
I think Newt savors the flavor of cock, but only his own.
Posted by: Captain Hate at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (VInlz)
It's fundamental to his political nature, or in other words, he's a prick.
Posted by: Fritz at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (/8mBu)
memo to Libyan al Qaeda revolutionaries...
Well, at least its a time line....What say you Prez Brackets O'candyass?
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (Z1jiu)
Am I the only one who thinks that the only reason Newt is flirting with a run (again) is to bolster his visibility and speaking fees?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 23, 2011 03:10 PM (SY2Kh)
Pretty much. Or, maybe with an outside belief that maybe he'll catch lightening in a bottle. Anyone who says they can predict modern politics is lying. But, probably the speaking fees.
And I say he's earned it. Web-savvy political junkies like to be the first to throw a previously loyal soldier over the side at the first wiff of disloyalty. This guy was doing the heavy lifting for the Right back when Republicans were happy to be the mild-mannered opposition party forever.
Posted by: CJ at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: polynikes at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (yKP4s)
Newt's true position is obvious. Whatever will get him the most blow jobs.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 23, 2011 11:15 AM (1hM1d)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:16 AM (AZGON)
Not In My Name
Heh, where's the new "I'm Sorry, World" site?
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 23, 2011 11:17 AM (oSMOM)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:19 AM (AZGON)
Newt vs. Odipstick, yeah, no contest, I will go with boil, boil, trouble, hair of dog and eye of newt.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 23, 2011 11:19 AM (Z1jiu)
Posted by: Jerry at March 23, 2011 11:21 AM (QF8uk)
memo to Libyan al Qaeda revolutionaries...
That would make me like 100. I'm not that optimistic.
Posted by: Molemar Kadphi at March 23, 2011 11:21 AM (uqJo6)
Just installed Foxfire 4.0. It is Hot and Fast.
AoSHQ comes up immediately, instead of the usual pause.
If you are running Foxfire, upgrade to 4.0
Posted by: Kemp at March 23, 2011 03:04 PM (JpFM9)
Unfortunately, the newest version usually shits the bed with my add-ons. That's why I normally wait awhile to upgrade.
Posted by: Ed Anger at March 23, 2011 03:11 PM (7+pP9)
Yeah, I still can't download my 'Better Privacy' add-on that makes you able to delete those 'permanent cookies' that sites put on your computer. Most people think that by deleting their cookies they delete those (LSOs) but they don't. Plus, every site seems to add them now. Hell, every time I hit this place 2 or 3 usually pop up on the list to delete.
Posted by: momma at March 23, 2011 11:23 AM (penCf)
Posted by: George Bernard Shaw at March 23, 2011 03:09 PM (MvISE)
Before he arrived it was pleasure, afterward it was a pain in the dong!
It was one of Wilde's
Posted by: George Bernard Shaw II at March 23, 2011 11:24 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2011 11:25 AM (+61wI)
TinyURL went away, too, as did "clear cache" and the restart extension.
Posted by: jwb7605 at March 23, 2011 11:28 AM (Qxe/p)
@96: "We're now allies with Al Qaeda. Well played, Barry. Well played."
We were allies with Stalin, Mao, and a bunch of other nasties in WWII. Sometimes, shit just happens.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 23, 2011 11:28 AM (xy9wk)
Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?
***tosses polynikes through window***
But he was skilled in the Arts of War! Didn't you hear??
Posted by: Eddie Jr. at March 23, 2011 11:29 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 23, 2011 11:30 AM (YmPwQ)
I'm having trouble convincing myself QDaffy is as much of a menace as Hitler and Tojo were.
Posted by: jwb7605 at March 23, 2011 11:30 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 23, 2011 11:33 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 23, 2011 11:33 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Barack Obama at March 23, 2011 11:34 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at March 23, 2011 11:34 AM (LdYLm)
Yeah, but they were the lesser evil.
Joining with AQ to take down Kadhafi is like allying with Hitler to stop Mussolini.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 23, 2011 11:35 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at March 23, 2011 11:35 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 23, 2011 11:37 AM (AZGON)
The whole mess was caused by him not keeping his mouth shut and trying to act like he's king of the world.
And a quick no-fly zone with an aircraft carrier in the Med, along with some Egyptian army people on the border would have put a crimp in Ghadaffi's plans.
Now it's a big mess, and it is because he CAUSED the thing by shooting his mouth off and then DITHERED so that Ghadaffi could regroup.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2011 11:38 AM (Fo83G)
Posted by: Ioway corn farmers at March 23, 2011 11:40 AM (JZBti)
@140: "It is my firm belief that deep inside every burqa is a Jane Fonda Kathleen Soliah/Bernadine Dorhn/Squeaky Fromme/Sara Jane Moore waiting to get out, and that benefits America."
FTFY
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 23, 2011 11:40 AM (xy9wk)
Posted by: MrObvious at March 23, 2011 11:42 AM (v4UYp)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 23, 2011 03:33 PM (QcFbt)
Newt lost me when he ripped the last box of ribbed Trojans out of my hands at the drugstore.
Posted by: Soona at March 23, 2011 11:43 AM (7X1Ce)
@175: "They've arrested the animal who raped her, and I genuinely hope he suffers a violent, vicious, brutal end. Him and his entire accursed family."
Hey, we already got one of his family!
Posted by: Bangladeshi Justice System at March 23, 2011 11:48 AM (xy9wk)
Yep, this is exactly why I can't respect Newt either.
He's always got to be the smartest back-seat driving Monday morning quarterback in the room.
It doesn't matter whether it's a Republican President or a Democratic one he happens to be critiquing because, in Newtie's mind, none of them have been blessed with the extraordinary 20/20 hindsight which allows him to share his ex post facto omniscience with the world.
Posted by: leilani at March 23, 2011 11:48 AM (MI7Jw)
"dyed-in-the-wool isolationist who opposes any foreign military activity", learn the distinction between NON-INTERVENTIONIST and isolationist.
Your biased opinion is ill founded, to say the least.
Non-interventionists abide by the Constitution, and require the US Military to defend the borders and interior of our nation. Non-interventionists like Ron Paul promote laissez-faire free trade between nations. The policy of non-intervention is based upon the farewell speech by the Father of our Country leaving the presidency, George Washington.
Isolationists not only refuse military interventionism, but are also protectionists promoting punitive tariffs on imports to drive up inflation and stagnate trade through commerce interventionism.
Posted by: by any other name at March 23, 2011 11:54 AM (H+LJc)
Like beat-up-the-mentally-disabled unfair.
Posted by: Marcus at March 23, 2011 02:58 PM (CHrmZ)
That's unfair? Oops!
I like how Obama has done things in Libya. I doubt he is using my reasoning though: Why help out the rebels/al Queda early and just get screwed by the world doing it? Let them bleed each other all over the place. Whatever ends up dead is that many less ragheads who might come over here and suicide bomb us. Also, he wants someone else to lead. Great! Then, whenever we want, we can take our marbles and go home, like the Dumb Krautheads just did. (O noes! 2 less frigates & 1 less AWAC!)
I doubt the Commie-in-Chief is thinking like that, but I wish I wish he was. Still, maybe for the first time he didn't lie and it will be days, not weeks.
It could all become academic since the Frogs want to command by committee (and keep their vote strong in decision making) while the Italians say put command under NATO (Needs America To Operate) or they yank the bases.
I'm probably wrong and it will end up sucking some how.
Posted by: TomJW at March 23, 2011 11:57 AM (Li2G9)
Posted by: by any other name at March 23, 2011 12:02 PM (H+LJc)
Hannity went on the most paternalistic rant today, saying America was the world's daddy and the other countries know when they really need discipline & tough love. That was too much neocon even for me.
Posted by: jeannie at March 23, 2011 12:11 PM (GdalM)
What is the issue? If you go to the tools menu they should all show... Curious.
Posted by: Marcus at March 23, 2011 12:13 PM (CHrmZ)
The man leaves both his ex wives while they are fighting serious illness, although he was already screwing around on them for years. His excuse is that he was working so hard for his country. That excuse alone should disqualify the bastard from ever setting foot in the WH, again. I mean, who the fuck comes up with that to justify his complete assholery?
That BS excuse, alone, refutes the belief that the man has a fucking brain in his head let alone is smart enough to run the damn country.
Posted by: Steph at March 23, 2011 12:15 PM (AkdC5)
Every presidential decision would be based on advancing Trump's personal business interests, no holds barred. It isn't as if Trump is interested in abiding by the Constitution or Rule of Law, that somehow he'd be a better leader than Obama. Trump is for Obama's social justice, Bush's compassionate neoconservatism, and federal intervention in commerce not for national security but to "level the playing field".
Posted by: by any other name at March 23, 2011 12:21 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at March 23, 2011 12:22 PM (UU0OF)
Britain had this down to an art form from the Napoleonic era up until after WWI.
Posted by: toby928™ at March 23, 2011 12:27 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Awnree at March 23, 2011 12:29 PM (sR3hB)
Posted by: Monty
I can see my tree from here.
ps: I've been waiting to use that joke on my nephew.
Pps: answers the other ? sideways also.
Posted by: The Fruit of the Loom Apple at March 23, 2011 12:29 PM (gzJsG)
Posted by: toby928™ at March 23, 2011 12:34 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 23, 2011 12:34 PM (swuwV)
The man leaves both his ex wives while they are fighting serious illness, although he was already screwing around on them for years. His excuse is that he was working so hard for his country. That excuse alone should disqualify the bastard from ever setting foot in the WH, again. I mean, who the fuck comes up with that to justify his complete assholery?
It was a dumb excuse, but I doubt that the truth- "Hey, I was horny"- would've gone over much better.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 23, 2011 12:42 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Hannibal Chew at March 23, 2011 12:42 PM (GTbGH)
We don't know who any of the rebels are! Look how well Egypt is turning out, Obama threw an ally under the bus and now the people voted Saturday and the winner is the Muslim Brotherhood and the biggest losers are the women and Coptic Christians. I heard yesterday that the lowly police set one building on fire, I use the word "lowly" as I heard in, in "lowly paid".
The Muslims have been killng each other for thousands of years, we should not pick sides and stay out of it.
I'm still PO'd at Newt for the ad with Pelosi a few years ago, I remember them on a bench together! I would stay home rather than cast a vote for him too, unless I thought he'd beat O but I don't think he can. How bad is that?
Posted by: Carol at March 23, 2011 12:46 PM (bdB1C)
It was a dumb excuse, but I doubt that the truth- "Hey, I was horny"- would've gone over much better.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 23, 2011 04:42 PM (SY2Kh)
Fuck an excuse. There was none. Apologize for being an asshole, and at least try to convince people you've changed into somewhat of a decent person.
He can't do that, though, because he isn't. He's still a self-absorbed prick.
Posted by: Steph at March 23, 2011 12:48 PM (AkdC5)
Ace doesn't miss much, but what he doesn't discuss is the Obama factor.
Little Lenin is the 3rd factor, and he is the reason a respectable person can oppose something that under most other circumstances one would support.
Posted by: proreason at March 23, 2011 12:49 PM (+8dSJ)
Hmm. You have a good point, but I've always lived my life doing the exact opposite of what Jimmy Carter would do, and it makes me rarely wrong. Maybe it works doing the opposite of Obama too.
Posted by: Kevin at March 23, 2011 12:52 PM (ENL+r)
Posted by: "My eyes! My eyes!" at March 23, 2011 12:53 PM (+aMaK)
But it is unserious and partisan and cynical to urge muscular interventionism when Obama was sitting back and doing nothing but suddenly urging sitting back and doing nothing when Obama opts for airstrikes.
Posted by: Kevin at March 23, 2011 12:54 PM (ENL+r)
Posted by: pink floyd at March 23, 2011 12:58 PM (+aMaK)
Posted by: USA at March 23, 2011 02:25 PM (YZISw)
That's always SO aggravating when that happens.
Posted by: Frustrated Moronettes Everywhere at March 23, 2011 12:59 PM (urYpw)
No it shouldn't. The mission's a dumb one that doesn't do anything for American security and in fact harms it.
Posted by: MlR at March 23, 2011 01:00 PM (uxyPr)
We need to get rid of the CIA ban on assassinations from the mid 70s. Millions of innocent lives could be saved with some well-planned, well-targeted and (most of all) SECRET killings of America's enemies. I want to see the CIA become a feared service again, like the Mossad.
The risks to Western society associated with having a Star Chamber for dictator assasins have become lower than the risk of NOT having one. Here are my votes for guys that shoulda been green lighted years ago:
Castro, Kim Jong Mentally Il, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Qaddafi, Saddam, Mugabe, Assad, Chavez and of course # 1 - Osama Bin Laden. Could we have gotten all of them? Probably not, but wouldn't the US and the west in general be better off if several of these assholes had taken their dirtnaps a couple decades ago?
Posted by: Kortezzi at March 23, 2011 01:15 PM (piR98)
Let's say that Qaddafi gets overthrown by an Al Qaida led rebel force, which then leads to an Al Qaida gov't.
Would you morons be upset about finally having a nation that we can formally declare war on for 9/11?!?
If the Libyan people are stupid enough to setup an Al Qaida gov't, then they'll reap what they sow.
Posted by: scrood at March 23, 2011 01:20 PM (4cRlt)
Didn't his Elvis leave the building when he plopped his fat ass on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi to spout off the "green" bullshit?
Posted by: jmflynny at March 23, 2011 02:18 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: sexypig at March 23, 2011 06:59 PM (2heUi)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2878 seconds, 354 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Bear with me.
Posted by: Knut Gingrich at March 23, 2011 10:23 AM (2pEj7)