It’s simple, really: enrage leftists (protecting their anti-war cred); tack toward transnationalism by suggesting that the UN is leading here and that this is how it should be, with the military to be used for humanitarian intervention rather than out of something so crass as sovereign interests; all the while, try to win back independents by showing you are willing to break from your own base (which we know to be the Democrat party, but who the media will portray in the persons of Nader and Kucinich, eg.) and take military action when you feel it necessary.
It was a half-thought out campaign maneuver on the one hand, and a commitment to transnational progressivism on the other.
That’s all there is to it.
****
update: Serendipity! (h/t Rush Limbaugh show)
And don’t leave out, not letting it seem that Hillary had more balls than da One. Because that is intollerable too.
Sometimes I think we give Him too much credit. I can hear him saying on a con-call with Hillary from Rio as he picks Churrasco out of his front teeth, “Oh shit! You mean we had to tell Congress first? But the U.N. said it was OK!” …because, of course, in his mind, the U.N. is a far superior arbiter of Wright and Wrong in the world.
Intolerable?
Hillary! has more balls than a baseball practice. No secret there…
Joe, Hillary DOES have more balls than the “O”– hers and Bill’s.
I figured it was France and the UK stepping up that made Team Obama (Fuck Yeah!) realize that they had to appear to be doing something. “Obama Makes France Look Courageous” just isn’t a winning campaign theme. Well, it is, but not for Obama.
I’m hoping that the half-thought out campaing ploy hand is the one that bites him in the ass (so to speak).
It’s reminiscent of Papa Bush’s trip to Rio in ’91 or ’92: he’s doing too much for his natural supporters comfort and not enough for his critics to rethink their criticism.
The left would be outraged at US military action, except 1) we are doing the bidding of the UN, 2) we have zero national interest in this campaign.
The notion that he might ought to run it past Congress never entered his mind. If the UN and the Arab League like it, how could it be wrong?
And of course:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
I got the UN, bitches! Consti-what?
Well, all that plus he was about to be upstaged by that little Frenchman with the smoking hawt wife.
The judges would also have accepted the answer: He’s making it up between mouthfuls of buttery, syrup-laden waffles, while updating his NCAA b-ball tournament brackets and completing the score card from his latest round on the links.
Finally! Bipartisanship. Based on Constitutional principles, too. John Conyers is even on board. I did not see that coming out of this administration.
Pablo, no disrespect, but in this instance Mallor is wrong.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/03/22/7_questions_for_liberals_about_obamas_libyan_war/page/full/
Channelling the left:
1) Isn’t this a rush to war?
Yes Rush is a war monger.
2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him?
No, Hillary told him to do it. He can’t be outstaged by Hillary.
3) Is this a war for oil?
No silly, we can get plenty of George Soros oil in Brazil.
4) Where are the massive protests?
In Wisconsin where they belong.
5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead?
Yes, but Hillary would have none of that. See #2.
6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya?
If only we could bomb the Tea Partiers. Some day, some day.
7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk?
Absolutely not. He served (honorably) as a community organizer.
The multiple personalities of Eugene Robinson.
February 25, 2011:
March 21, 2011:
It can be so difficult keeping up with the spin. Poor Eugene.
I’m speaking to two things in my criticism of Mallor: 1) the idea that the CinC needs congressional permission, 2) talk of impeaching him for not seeking the permission that he doesn’t need.
[…] Jeff G explains what’s going on in the King’s empty, bulbous head: “It was a half-thought out campaign maneuver on the one hand, and a commitment to transnational progr….” That sums it all up pretty well, I think. Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a […]
I think he just saw someone on TV say that he should bomb Libya, and Obama figured sending Tom Cruise over would look good to the foreign press.
Honestly, I don’t think he has a clue why we are bombing anyone.
I think the French could handle this just fine.
Sorta on topic, my wife tells me that I have a cousin I haven’t seen since Junior High who joined the Foreign Legion after like 15 years in the Marines. I don’t have the heart to tell him I pawned the Blue Water for a pair of used Nikes in 1986.
I was so willing to give Obama kudos for staying out of the protesty shit in the middle east. I know, he couldn’t keep his mouth shut, and presented a confused position showing he never had a handle on the situation, but at least he didn’t intervene. I was down on letting the various countries work out their own destiny without our meddling. Especially since we obviously had no coherent plan.
*sigh*
Arizonans are being murdered, and swathes of Arizona are under foreign control, but we charge in to protect Libyans. Who these Libyans are, and what they want, no one knows, but we’re going to help them with lethal force.
You know, now that the American entertainers have packed up and left.
It’s a political steering committee.
We are so fucked.
[…] Goldstein speculates on the President’s war policy with regards to Libya: It’s simple, really: enrage leftists […]
The steering committee needs a catchy name and a neat slogan that can be retweeted.
So,
Lecturer-in-Chief OBumbleshoot and his Harvard friends go to war.
One of the first orders of the war was to make sure the American side of the lunch menu had the calories listed properly.
The second was to find a way to obfuscate the carbon footprint of an F-16
Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign. A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S. The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.
DOT forgot to include the link, but I suspect it is AP… from the JOMers..
I suspect ops will go on without the Luftwaffe or Kreigsmarine… and don’t think the Turks will allow NATO any role whatsoever.
Gadhafi, not so much.
Ahhh… it was the UK Daily Mail. More
I suspect ops will look like the Keystone Cops before this is over. This is what “
BushObama rushing to war” looks like…too many cooks on the wheel
[…] . . explained. Cancel […]
[…] know, I can remember when Kurtz was a thoughtful and articulate critic of our friends the Democrats’ […]