Saturday, March 26, 2011

Andrew McCarthy lays out the case against the kinetic military action on Libya.

Mark Steyn explains the Obama Doctrine, if something this whimsical can be called a doctrine or policy:
[c]ertainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid ("I'm accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace") or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview:

"That's why building this international coalition has been so important," he said the other day. "It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally."
So THAT'S what Commander-in-Chief means, allowing our military to be "volunteered" our others, who understand foreign policy better than you do?

Read the whole thing.

I've always thought of Wisconsin and a well run, competent place filled with competent people. After all, it's known as a progressive state, ahead of the rest of us in adopting progressive policies. But that was before I learned what the Progressive Movement was all about. The recent brouhaha over the Budget Repair Bill shattered my illusions. What sort of responsible legislator leaves the state to prevent the presence of a quorum? And now we see a state judge making an absurd ruling to block a duly enacted law from taking affect. This is the sort of thing you expect in Illinois or California, but Wisconsin?

Hypocrites on Parade

Dissent is Unpatriotic (Via

Boy, if they could see themselves! The hubris! The self-righteousness! Nobody is rooting for Qadaffi. The reason he won’t do a thing about Syria is because it would lead to confronting Iran, and that would lead to confronting Russia and China.

We seen this “limited war” scenario before. It’s Truman in Korea, and LBJ in Vietnam redux. They just leave suppurating wounds that fester into horrors like Cambodia and North Korea and the round ups that drove so many of our allies in So. Vietnam to become boat people while others were killed or put in re-education camps. The best I can see coming out of Libya is civil war.

Now why was it so many of the anti-war left wanted us out of Vietnam? They said it was a civil war and none of our business. It’s been half a century since the “civil war” in Korea was “settled.” That’s how Democrats since JFK handle wars, er – I mean kinetic military action. They make this sound like it’s a military training exercise. Then they get led further in but never are willing to fight to unequivocal victory.

What’s worse is that our President thinks this is Smart Diplomacy. He’s chuffed with himself.

These people tossed out the old tradition that "Politics ends at the water's edge," in the late Sixties. And only waited a decent interval before they amped up their attacks on Bush after 9/11. And they feel no shame about all their past unpatriotic dissent? The opponents of this policy aren't unpatriotic. They're not rooting for America to fail. The dissent from the right hasn't been about hating America or wanting it to fail. Just the opposite. They want to maintain America's standing in the world and to avoid another waster of lives and resources without getting sucked into a third military operation in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

The real question is why the Democrats don't seem to care. They just enjoy the power Obama has given them, and they couldn't care less about the wreckage they leave behind.