Seen on Facebook: “Barack Obama has launched more Tomahawk missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined.”
Probably more Predator drones, too.
[Update a while later]
Credit where it’s due. A rare self-deprecating moment for the president. I think that even he, with all his ego, realized and realizes how ridiculous that award was, and how it may have been the last straw in finally discrediting it.
This is truly becoming farcical:
We bombed Qaddafi’s forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi’s forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians.So NATO may end up killing civilians.
In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi’s forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians.
Who’s on first?
Via Jonah Goldberg, who writes in his weekly G-File:
The New York Times reports that NATO has told the rebels that if they kill civilians then NATO will bomb them, too.
As a commenter in the Corner put it, this is reminiscent of that scene in Bananas where the operatives are talking en route to a hot zone:
“Any word on where we’re going?”
“I hear it’s San Marcos.”
“For or against the government?”
“CIA’s not taking any chances. Some of us are for it, and some of us are gonna be against it.”More seriously, has there ever been a war where we’ve gone from taking sides in the fight to saying, “You kids play nice! Don’t make me come in there!” (Honest question, has there ever been a great power that has in effect acted like a schoolyard referee, making sure that both sides “fight fair”?)
It would be American exceptionalism at its finest. If the president believed in that sort of thing.
And we have a Secretary of State who thinks that Bashar Assad is a reformer.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
[Bumped]
“The Jonas Brothers are here; they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans; but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?”
Also,
A reasonable question.
As Clinton took out the professional feminists for nearly a decade, so is Obama doing a number on the leftist motivated “Peace Prize”.
It’s good to have a legacy to look back on.
This is what happens when you give ANY prize before the recipient hits the playing field!! Regardless of what or where the playing field may be.
Of course this is also the problem with giving trophies for participation. The recipients ASS-U-ME they deserve said trophy, simply for showing up. If ONLY that Ivy League, smarter than all of us, Constitutional Historian, hero for the world, peace maker for the Universe, uber-problem solver had shown up, a trophy would be OK to give. Hell, I’d donate for that guy to get a trophy!
But instead of that leader, we got Barack Obama.
King of the hoops bracket, Mr Beer Summit!! A 40-something, community organizer with about 15 minutes working experience verified by ‘present’ votes in IL, who was reasonably wealthy, yet who still thinks rich people got that way by stealing from the poor or minorities. A guy who thinks armed Muslims who saw the heads off of journalists are Freedom Fighters, but thinks right-wing, unarmed American Christians are ‘dangerous’.
We should all get a trophy for surviving his Presidency. Providing of course, that we do. NO!! It has to be t-shirts, T-SHIRTS, like those Nawlins / Katrina survivor t-shirts!
“I lived in America Jan 2009 – Jan 2013,
and all I have left is this stupid T-Shirt!”
or
“Obama flies all over the world,
and I can barely afford this Stupid T-Shirt!”
or
“I survived Obama 2009 – 2013!”
(I’ll sell them through Amazon, and remember to order through this blog so Rand gets the tips)
I like the black half of Obama…the hoops playing, sweet sixteen bracketing, speech making, beer summitting half.
Its the white half of Obama that I can’t stand…the European Socialism loving professorial erudite credentialed leftist half.
Does the black half ever try to strangle the white half, or vice versa?
“Does the black half ever try to strangle the white half, or vice versa?”
The real question is if it would be classified as a hate crime.
jliminator – I agreed at first, but then remembered at least half of the Chicago machine politician part of him is black.
It would have been a great slogan in 2008, though, wouldn’t it? “Can we elect only the black half of him?”
Here is the original quote-
“Barack Obama has now been responsible for firing more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.
He’s still in 2nd place for number of Arab deaths caused (and 3rd place for Muslim deaths) behind Yassir Arafat and Mikhail Gorbachev.”
http://goo.gl/h4Xwz
AKH
Oh, that would be so cool to see. I have a cat whose tail routinely tries to strangle him, and it’s pretty funny, but the pres fighting himself? We could put a pay per view cam in the oval office and pay the national debt.
Hmmm. Are you saying we tried to elect a black president, but somehow ended up with Woodrow Wilson again?
AKH,
ROFL!
I had a momentary, mental picture of Obama (in a wheelchair, wearing a black glove, hair all swept up in the front) and he keeps fighting off his hand as it tries to drag him away, then the hand tries to strangle him!!
Brilliant thought Alan, brilliant!! It’s bad enough that they’ve jacked up the price of our vehicular fluids, I just hope they don’t go after our precious bodily fluids next.
A combatant dressing as a civilian is a war crime.
Go round up everyone involved in the International Criminal Court and airdrop them into the area to help justice prevail.
Interesting maneuver by Rand Paul: Paul Rankles Reid on Libya
Credit where credit is due:
I think you’ll find that the tomahawk comment now in circulation originated with poster “bgates,” over at Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute blog. He should have a Facebook fan club all his own, because he is one of the wittiest voices on the web!
Have we ever tried to fight both sides? Well, in the mid-1990s, the theory of “peace enforcement” (not to be confused with UN Chapter VII peace enforcement–which was just war, really) was flirted with where our job would be to impose peace on all warring factions–violence itself was supposed to be the enemy. Really.
So who’s going to provide the uniforms so that the Libyan resistance can comply with NATO demands?
Somehow this seems appropriate:
http://www.investors.com/EditorialCartoons/Cartoon.aspx?id=567134&Ntt=
If the link will work, that is.
Mike
“So who’s going to provide the uniforms so that the Libyan resistance can comply with NATO demands?”
Versace
Gregg,
I keep hearing the Dems defend this half a$$ed attempt in Libya, and it’s the SAME ones who hounded GWB everyday over Iraq and Afghanistan. But after reading that, I’ve got a question.
Where’s John Kerry in all this?!
He’s neither voting before nor after, neither for nor against! He’s been silent as far as I can remember. He was the voice of military experience before January 2009, remember?
God help us if anyone attacks us in the next 18 months. The only one with a car or plane with enough food and gasoline to get away, will be the guys who caused the current round of problems.
Problems, to my mind, that outstrip any in my lifetime!
1. Insert CIA.
2. Start War.
3. Develop Operational Plan.
4. Learn about Who we’re fighting for.
5. Bomb both sides.
“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas any more.”
IcePilot,
you left out
4.(A) Blame someone else for leaving us this mess.
5.(A) spend billions, track just a few pennies
5.(B) make friends with murdering (socialist / religious fanatic) new leaders
5.(C) blame the military for lax distribution problems that CAUSED the billions to be spent with no way to track the funding.
6. RAISE TAXES, blame the rich for not paying enough up until now
Two comments and both forgot:
#1. Set your bracket and present to ESPN!
It seems that a lot of the Libyan rebels are actually Al Queda fighters. It’d be a fascinating gambit to publically oppose Quadaffi in order to draw out Al Queda so Quadaffi could kill them for us, with the stray “accidental” bombing thinning their ranks from time to time, of course.
However, I don’t think anyone in this administration is nearly that cleaver to come up with a gambit like this…
And we all forgot,
Dead Last Run away on vacation, ignore ALL the problems.
Der Schtumpy Says:
“I keep hearing the Dems defend this half a$$ed attempt in Libya, and it’s the SAME ones who hounded GWB everyday over Iraq and Afghanistan. But after reading that, I’ve got a question.
Where’s John Kerry in all this?!
He’s neither voting before nor after, neither for nor against! He’s been silent as far as I can remember. He was the voice of military experience before January 2009, remember?”
Oh John Effing Kerry has been quite vocal in all of this:
March 6 Face the Nation:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., today said setting up a controversial no-fly zone over the country would not cross the line into military intervention.
“The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don’t consider the no-fly zone stepping over that line,” Kerry said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.
“We don’t want [U.S.] troops on the ground. [The rebels] don’t want [U.S.] troops on the ground. That would be counterproductive,”
But he said that the U.S. ought to be prepared to set up a no-fly zone (although there would be no grounds to implement it until asked by U.S. allies).
March 31:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/03/kerry_offers_st.html
“I have laid out what I see as the justifications for this military intervention and I don’t need to repeat the details now…..First, we do have strategic interests at stake in Libya. What we do as part of this international coalition reverberates throughout North Africa and the Middle East, a region where extremism has thrived and attacks against Western interests have been incubated.
Second, our actions send a critical signal to other leaders. If Khadafy had been successful in using tanks and aircraft to suppress the aspirations of the Libyan people, it would have been a tragedy not just for Libyans. It would have been a setback for the dreams unfolding across the entire region.
Some have asked, why Libya and not other humanitarian situations? The truth is that we must weigh our ideals, our interests and our capabilities in each case and then decide where and how to become involved. Every potential conflict is unique. In the case of Libya, where the opposition and the Arab League called for our help, I think the scales tipped heavily in favor of the limited military intervention.
Finally, success is not guaranteed. Even if more senior officials like Mousa Kousa, the foreign minister and once the feared chief of intelligence, defect, Khadafy may hang on for some time. Even after the opposition ousts Khadafy, which I am confident will occur at some point, the country will face a long and challenging road to build a more democratic and stable society. But saving lives in Libya is the least we can do to give a new generation of Arabs the chance to change the history of the region.”
Plenty of Democrats supported military intervention in: Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya — including President Clinton, Secretary Albright, many other influential members of the Clinton administration, VP Gore, Sen. Lieberman, and of course, Secretary Clinton.
I liked the way use of force was distributed too: for Afghanistan and Iraq, where American lives were threatened (presuming WMDs in Iraq, which I think everyone mentioned above expected to find), heavy American casualties were risked. For Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Kosovo, and Libya, where humanitarian goals came first, geopolitcs came second, and the threat to America was very low, air and sea power were used, keeping US casualties low.
Obviously Somalia and Iraq didn’t work out as well as hoped, but I think Bush-41, Clinton, and Bush-43 all did the right thing, imperfectly, but perfection is hard. You can complain about various Democrats, but don’t forget about the centrists and neo-cons (like me!) in the Democratic party. I predict history will blur away almost all the differences between Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43, and Obama regarding foreign policy, perhaps only noting that Bush-43’s rough manner distracted the American public, making it seem as if he was different from the other three when it came to diplomacy when in fact he wasn’t really all that different.
I meant to say “distracted the American public, and even more so, the rest of the world”
Bush-43′s rough manner
Yeah! W should never have gone into Iraq without Congressional Approval! And he could have at least waited for the ink to dry on the UN resolution before letting the missiles fly! W just rushed to war with Iraq, and all to distract from his disaterous economic policies at home that lead to 6% unemployment. It was nothing but a war for oil!
So, since you’re being completely sarcastic, it sounds like you and I agree about George W. Bush and the second Gulf War, because I too would only say those things sarcastically.
Whoops. I disagree about the nature of the economic policies at home but I agree that the war was not intended to distract from those policies. I think it is likely that if Gore had won, or if Clinton had gotten a (somehow legal) third term, we would have attacked Iraq in a more foreceful way than we had already been doing via the no-fly zone and cruise missile strikes — because of the post-9/11 attitude toward adversaries of the USA. I think the Nader people are horribly wrong about the Democrats and the Republicans being just about the same — except with regard to foreign policy, where, thankfully, many people in the two parties are pretty much the same.
I disagree about the nature of the economic policies at home but I agree that the war was not intended to distract from those policies.
I didn’t mention any economic policy. I think you are projecting, and then disagreeing with your projection.
Not a big deal, but you are mistaken. Scroll up and reread what you wrote. You said, “… and all to distract from his disaterous economic policies at home that lead to 6% unemployment”
What economic policy did I mention, Bob? Which policy are you disagreeing?
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, you’re right. You weren’t specific but I assumed that if you were specific, I’d disagree. Lets not talk about economics — I’d like to savor our moment of agreement regarding our 43rd president and his foreign policy.
What foreign policy did I mention, Bob? Which policy are you agreeing?
Yeah! W should have gone into Iraq since he had Congressional Approval! And he waited for the ink to dry on the UN resolution (starting in 1991) before letting the missiles fly! W didn’t rush to war with Iraq, and did not do it to distract from his disaterous economic policies at home that eventually led to high unemployment. It was certainly not a war for oil.
Except, W didn’t go in, we were already there, and had been since 1991.
The only way this would possibly make sense would be if were were trying to get as many people killed on both sides on the ground as possible.
….
Hm.. That actually does actually make sense. We get two of the most repugnant organizations in the world to fight, and we drop bombs on both of them. Now if only we could get Iran and North Korea involved….