OT This just in! Gadaffi found!!
Pat
Muammar Gaddafi's whereabouts was resolved today as the dictator
announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in
a town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire.
In announcing his candidacy, the Libyan madman joins a Republican
field which is believed to number in excess of seven hundred
candidates.
While some New Hampshire Republicans seemed surprised to see Col.
Gaddafi shaking hands and kissing babies at the Concord town hall, an
aide to the Libyan strongman said his transformation to GOP candidate
made perfect sense.
"In those final days in Tripoli he was becoming increasingly
disconnected from reality," said the aide. "So I think he'll fit
right in."
Mr. Gaddafi, dressed in his trademark yellow turban and matching robe,
got mixed reviews in his first appearance on the campaign trail, with
some New Hampshire citizens saying that his six-hour stump speech was
badly in need of pruning.
Additionally, some felt that his rhetoric needed to be toned down,
especially his closing line about fighting for the Republican
nomination "until the last drop of blood."
But others gave him high marks for his grasp of history and geography,
which most agreed was stronger than Michele Bachmann's.
Perhaps underscoring the challenges that lie ahead for Mr. Gaddafi in
his quest for the GOP nod, current polls show him in the back of the
pack, leading former Senator Rick Santorum but trailing the pizza guy.
"Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he might be out of step with the
current crop of Republican candidates," one pollster said. "There's a
perception that he's too moderate."
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
truly despair for my country.)
rich...@gmail.com
It would be very strange to see him win the nomination, although it
would be an interesting first to have two Muslims opposing each other
in the race for President.
rich...@gmail.com
A21²
Sorry to rain on the parade but according to D. Trump Hawaii wasn't a
U.S. state in 1942 when Gaddafi was born.
A21
rich...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure it needs to have been a state.
Right now I'm more focused on who the Gadaffi running mate will be. It
can't be another Hawaiin, which lets out the possibliity of a fusion
ticket with Obama, since they would forfeit those three Electoral
College votes. As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the
rug out from under the group of Americans who support Obama the most -
the Muslim population - but it's hard to know who would be best at
balancing the ticket and winning the election.
F R
As it stands, a Gadaffil candidacy will really pull the rug out from
under the group of Americans who support Obama the most - the Muslim
population - but it's hard to know who would be best at balancing the
ticket and winning the election.
according to recent polls 80% of Muslim-Americans support Obama, whereas
88% of African-Americans support him for re-election.
He needs to introduce and educate Americans as to the beauty of Sharia
law. Would win him a lot of red-neck votes, actually.
Frank
rich...@gmail.com
Well, Frank, it stands to reason that a truly progressive President
would have the vast bulk of the support of the Muslim community in
this country.
All best
A21²
Oh please . . and then there's the requirement that a candidate must
have been been to U.S. citizens. I feel so empowered writing this
stuff that I'm considering going to NYU law school . . maybe just for
lunch at first.
Ancona21
rich...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, if you recall, McCain, who had the election stolen from him,
was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no requirement that you be
born in a 'state'.
The issue you raised, obviously without thinknig about it, was
whether someone born in a territory (before it became a state) were
eligible to be President. We know that if you are born in the US
proper, of any nationality, you are a US citizen; I suspect the same
is true for territories.
Am not sure what "and then there's the requirement that a candidate
must have been been to U.S. citizens" exactly means, but you might be
happier, all together, at New York Law School if there's an essay
question on the admissions test.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
"Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that
Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church? (In fact, the militant
pro-black preacher of his church created quite a furor during the
presidential election.)
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
However, it WAS a U.S. "Possession", which also conferred U.S.
Citizenship to those born there. (Although of course Gaddafi was not.)
rich...@gmail.com
<evgm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's not Obama. That's a double who's hired to go. The real Obama
actually has plans now to put the speakers for a mosque at the top of
the Lincoln Memorial. That was the real 'agenda' when they were trying
to identify him with Abraham Lincoln..And it's not that he's taking a
lot of vacation; it's the repeat trips to Mecca that take up so much
of the time.
Pat
<evgm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Two Muslims"???? Are you one of the idiots who ignore the fact that
> Obama attends an Evangelical Christian church?
__________
Please don't give Richard a bad time about his politics.
Clearly the Republicans in Congress have mathematics, good sense, and
moral uprightness on their side when they argue that reducing the
disposable income of a wealthy person -- check that, I meant to say a
job-creator -- by $1,000 would deal a crushing blow to the economy,
while reducing the disposable income of twenty poor and middle-class
people by $50 each (by reducing entitlement spending) would surely
redound to the economic advantage of all.
The wealthy, after all, know what to do with money. They buy
securities, hedge against economic uncertainty, and diversify their
holdings by making investments in the economies of many countries.
All proven job-creation techniques, especially in third-world
economies. The unsophisticated poor and the middle class, on the
other hand, would only blow the money on food, clothing, shelter,
health care and other such fripperies.
How is the economy ever going to recover if we continue to indulge the
baser instincts of the working classes?
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
But Pat, if the working classes really were given the benefits of
taxes from the rich, they wouldn't be working any more, and where
would we all be?
rich...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the
new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a
low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for
various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him
shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that
he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing
dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory
him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care
issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on
the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I
think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is
constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that
the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority,
but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to
characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the
most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal
meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious
publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.
A21²
wrote:
> Actually, if you recall, McCain, who had the election stolen from him>
I thought I read that Sarah Palin apologized for that. };>))
,
> was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no requirement that you be
> born in a 'state'.
>
> The issue you raised, obviously without thinknig about it, was
> whether someone born in a territory (before it became a state) were
> eligible to be President. We know that if you are born in the US
> proper, of any nationality, you are a US citizen; I suspect the same
> is true for territories.
>
> Am not sure what "and then there's the requirement that a candidate
> must have been been to U.S. citizens" exactly means, but you might be
> happier, all together, at New York Law School if there's an essay
> question on the admissions test.>
Sorry about that - I mistyped. Shd hv rd: 'must have been born to U.S.
citizens'.
A21
A21²
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
A21
rich...@gmail.com
I had a training session in public relations for Sarah just when she
was considering leaving the governorship, and I told her that she
should never apologize, and never explain. So far, she had certainly
kept a steady course.
Pat
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Pat, as a serious note to you, see if you can find the
> new New Yorker article on Justice Thomas this week. It actually is a
> low-tech lynching. I don't much like Thomas' jurisprudence (for
> various reasons), but this article is one step away from calling him
> shiftless. They concede his intelligence (although my own view is that
> he doesn't actually write such great opinions), but the whole thing
> dredges up everthing except the kitchen sink to essentially pillory
> him and try to push on his recusing himself on the Obama health care
> issue. It's disgraceful as an article for the New Yorker. I think on
> the merits of the health care legal issue, it is right on the line; I
> think you can in good faith make either decision abourt whether it is
> constitutional, although I think that the much better argument is that
> the mandate IS unconstitutional, and exceeded the Congress' authority,
> but the author of the article will obviously stop at nothing to try to
> characterize Thomas as the pre-decided vote on this. It is some of the
> most prejudiced writing (not as a matter of color, but in the literal
> meaning of the term) that I have seen for a long time from a serious
> publication....you posts excepted, of course, as always.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
================
Assuming that the article Ancona linked to below is the one you're
talking about, I think that Mr Toobin (who is a frequent commentator
on court and legal issues on CNN) is very fair to Justice Thomas in
the first half of the article, which is all I've had time to read. As
you know many of the left have vilified Thomas from day one, but
Toobin goes out of his way to explain, respectfully, Thomas' approach
to the constitution, which is, as he says, even more conservative that
Justice Scalia's, in that Scalia, like most justices, is respectful of
legal precedent, the notion of 'stare decisis' - let the decision
stand. Whereas Thomas believes - as many on the left do, that if
something wrong, it's wrong, no matter how long we've been doing
things another way. A bit unusual, perhaps, but certainly an
intellectually defensible position.
I left off about halfway through, when Toobin turned to the subject
of Thomas's wife's involvement in the Tea Party and contempt for
Obama's health care plan and so on. Can you point me to that part of
the article that you found contentious? Because what I've read so
far is just about the most flattering characterization of Justice
Thomas that I've ever read.
As to the general point about whether the health care mandate is
constitutional or not, we have any number of societal mandates that
are not authorized by the constitution, but which we accept more or
less grudgingly. Drivers' licenses, hunting licenses, pet licenses,
business licenses, building codes, zoning regulations, food service
licenses, alcohol licenses and a hundred other governmental
regulations all restrict our liberties and dip into our pocketbooks in
an attempt to achieve a greater good. If providing health care to all
citizens is not a greater social good orders of magnitude more
important than whatever is accomplished by requiring people to buy
fishing licenses, I'm the Duke of Marlborough.
Perhaps the argument is that the health care insurance purchase
mandates should be instituted, if they are instituted at all, at the
state level. But having starkly different rules for health care
coverage in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, for
example, seems to me to be a recipe for chaos -- just as having
starkly different rules governing what constitutes a 'marriage' or a
'civil union' in various states is an invitation to legal and
fiduciary confusion in our highly mobile society. Good for lawyers,
perhaps, but not for anyone else.
The mobility factor is a hugely important question, I think, when
discussing constitutional principles. I suspect that many of the
delegates to the Constitutional Convention had never left their
states, except perhaps to attend continental congresses and such
like. Nowadays travel is a luxury; in those days travel was an
ordeal. I suspect that a good percentage of early Americans lived and
died in the county in which they were born. A great many migrated
westward, of course, over the generations, but I'll bet that many of
them stayed put, pretty much, once they found a place to settle down.
The social and geographical mobility we have today would have been
inconceivable to the men who wrote our founding documents, and any
sensible interpretation of the constitution, it seems to me, needs to
be cognizant of that fact.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Pat, if this is the most flattering article on the Justice that
you have ever read, I may not be preaching to the choir after
all........The article (and I don't have the time right at the moment
to go through it chapter and verse) goes through the whole Hill
debacle with the Received Wisdom of the Feminist Left as to his guilt,
throwning in 'testimony' in the form of books for profit decades
later, and without for a moment looking at the broader picture - that
is was, simply, an office romance between two people that went sour.
It was Anita Hill, not Saint Joan, up there. This has NO revlevance in
any case for anything - he was confirmed - and is just used as
character assasination. The purpose of the assasination is that the
writer knows that the mandate is questionable under the current
composition of the Court, and wants to find a way to knock out Thomas,
a likely vote against. So all kinds of issues are raised....he wife
(which is of no relevance), issues of how he participates in the
hearings (again, odd indeed, but of no relevance), and matters of his
personal psychology (assumed) and grievances which are supposed to
play into the decision (which has not been made, and is up to all 9
Justices). The article ends with someone saying "I know what his vote
will be. " What is the relevance of that?? I think a lot of people
know what My Favoite Latina's vote is going to be, and in MOST cases
you can guess most of the Justices. SO WHAT? The article is meant to
hammer him, and that's all. It gives the devil is due, as my mother
would have said, or, in other words, it damns with faint praise.
If there is a Justice who SHOULD recuse herself, it is Kagan, who was
part and parcel of the Obama administration. So why not an article on
her?
The entire thing is shameful. Hell hath no fury like a liberal who
feels that a minority owes him something for having patronized the
minority.
As to the mandate, I will only say that your examples are all related
to matters which are not, in fact, mandatory. There is no 'right' to a
drivers license or a hunting license (although after the article, I
kind of wished for the later), and no obligation for anyone to get
one. The mandate will apply to everyone for their entire lives,
whether they want to or not. The fact that some see a legitimate
social need in universal health care (which already doesn't apply to
corporations which Obama likes), doesn't preempt the Constitution.
If the health care mandate is constitutional, so would be a mandate
that every citizen, whether they wanted it or not, should pay money
monthly to an internet source so that they could be on the web,
because the government thought that it was 'important', or because
govenrmental 'emergencies' could be transmitted over the internet and
everyone 'needs' to have access.
The fact that something is 'important' doesn't mean it's part of the
Constitution, much less that it preempts what is already there. The
question is whether the Commerce Clause extends this far...that is the
technical question. My personal belief, on a much broader scale than
the Mandate, is that it does not. We will see what the Court, with
Thomas voting, will say. I would hope that the Court will do with the
expansive Commerce Clause what they should have done with Roe twenty
or more years ago.
All best
Pat
wrote:
>
> Well, Pat, if this is the most flattering article on the Justice that
> you have ever read, I may not be preaching to the choir after
> all........The article (and I don't have the time right at the moment
> to go through it chapter and verse) goes through the whole Hill
> debacle with the Received Wisdom of the Feminist Left as to his guilt,
> throwning in 'testimony' in the form of books for profit decades
> later, and without for a moment looking at the broader picture - that
> is was, simply, an office romance between two people that went sour.
> It was Anita Hill, not Saint Joan, up there. This has NO revlevance in
> any case for anything - he was confirmed - and is just used as
> character assasination. The purpose of the assasination is that the
> writer knows that the mandate is questionable under the current
> composition of the Court, and wants to find a way to knock out Thomas,
> a likely vote against. So all kinds of issues are raised....he wife
> (which is of no relevance), issues of how he participates in the
> hearings (again, odd indeed, but of no relevance), and matters of his
> personal psychology (assumed) and grievances which are supposed to
> play into the decision (which has not been made, and is up to all 9
> Justices). The article ends with someone saying "I know what his vote
> will be. " What is the relevance of that?? I think a lot of people
> know what My Favoite Latina's vote is going to be, and in MOST cases
> you can guess most of the Justices. SO WHAT? The article is meant to
> hammer him, and that's all. It gives the devil is due, as my mother
> would have said, or, in other words, it damns with faint praise.
I'll read the rest of the article later. But I saw nothing in the
first half of it that struck me as being unfair to Thomas. To the
contrary.
>
> As to the mandate, I will only say that your examples are all related
> to matters which are not, in fact, mandatory. There is no 'right' to a
> drivers license or a hunting license (although after the article, I
> kind of wished for the later), and no obligation for anyone to get
> one. The mandate will apply to everyone for their entire lives,
> whether they want to or not. The fact that some see a legitimate
> social need in universal health care (which already doesn't apply to
> corporations which Obama likes), doesn't preempt the Constitution.
>
> If the health care mandate is constitutional, so would be a mandate
> that every citizen, whether they wanted it or not, should pay money
> monthly to an internet source so that they could be on the web,
> because the government thought that it was 'important', or because
> govenrmental 'emergencies' could be transmitted over the internet and
> everyone 'needs' to have access.
>
The case would be clearer to define if we had a single-payer system,
which would be my first choice. In that case, people would probably
be "compelled" to pay somewhat higher taxes, rather than being
"compelled" to buy basic health insurance.
If one frames the mandated 'purchase' as a 'tax' the situation
becomes much clearer. I'm not allowed to opt out of paying property
taxes because my children are all grown up and out of school. Public
education is viewed as a good thing, which benefits society whether or
not one has school-age children of one's own. The national defense is
viewed as a good thing which benefits society regardless of how an
individual might feel about a certain military action. ** Decent
health care should be viewed in much the same way. Sensible people
should be willing to pay - and most *are* willing to pay - for some
basic level of universal health care. Whether we should spend
billions keeping one-pound preemies, comatose adults and fatally ill
nonagenarians alive indefinitely is a separate but very important
argument.
** Speaking of military actions, Obama's direction of the 'war'
against Qadaffi looks pretty good compared to George W Bush's
prosecution of the war against Saddam Hussein. Let's check the
scorecard:
American military deaths in Iraq -- approx 4,500
American military deaths in Libya approx 0
American serious military injuries in Iraq approx 25,000 (est)
American serious military injuries in Libya approx 0
American cost of war in Iraq -- variously estimated at $700 billion to
$3,000 billion
American cost of war in Libya -- approx $900 million through July 31,
according to the Pentagon - i.e. about one-tenth of one per cent of
the cost of the War in Iraq.
And the Republicans blame the Democrats for excessive spending...
Seems like a pretty good scorecard to me, so far. It's true that a
lot could still go wrong, but I think there's a respectable chance
that Libya could become a stable, respected member of the community of
nations, and perhaps even an ally in a dangerous and difficult part of
the world. I don't think that the odds of Iraq achieving those same
objectives are substantially lower, despite the vast amounts of blood
and treasure we invested there.
More importantly, the Europeans did most of the heavy lifting (after
the first week) in a conflict in which they had much more at stake
than we did.
Maybe 'leading from behind' isn't such a bad idea after all ...
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not entirely sure how you segued from the Mandate to the War against
Libya, except that you realize that both are unconstitutional, but,
like the good Republican you are at heart, they both make economic
sense to you, so damn the Consitution.
Very sorry to hear about Herbert Hoover, by the way.
I have no personal problem with the mandate - I think people should
pay their costs, and not be 'free riders'. But I don't believe that
this trumps the Constitution; it's certainly not a 'tax', because it's
not paid to any taxing authority that I am aware of.
This is not even a Republican or conservative issue. Twenty five
Attorneys General have brought a suit, and they're not just from red
states, Pat. They're from states that are red, white and blue..
As to the war in Libya, I'm glad you see things in terms of dollar and
cents, and not the lives of human beings. You're coming along, Pat,
You're coming along. A shame that the Libyan constitution is going to
be based on Sharia, but, what the hell, give them a hand.
All best
Pat
wrote:
>
> As to the war in Libya, I'm glad you see things in terms of dollar and
> cents, and not the lives of human beings. You're coming along, Pat,
> You're coming along. A shame that the Libyan constitution is going to
> be based on Sharia,
>
=================
Richard, I'm sure that you have inside contacts on the Libyan
Transitional National Council that the rest of us lack, but their
published founding documents certainly don't suggest any such thing:
The "Declaration of the founding of the Transitional National Council"
states the main aims of the council are as follows:
Ensure the safety of the national territory and citizens
Coordination of national efforts to liberate the rest of Libya
Support the efforts of local councils to work for the restoration of
normal civilian life
Supervise of the Military Council to ensure the achievement of the new
doctrine of the Libyan People's Army in the defense of the people and
protect the borders of Libya
Facilitate the election of a constituent assembly to draft a new
constitution for the country; be put to a popular referendum
Form a transitional government to pave the way for the holding of free
elections
Guide the conduct of foreign policy, and the regulation of relations
with other countries and international and regional organizations, and
the representation of the Libyan people
In another statement clarifying the goals for a post-Gaddafi Libya,
the council has committed itself to an eight-point plan to hold free
and fair elections, draft a national constitution, form political and
civil institutions, uphold intellectual and political pluralism, and
guarantee citizens' inalienable human rights and the ability of free
expression of their aspirations. The council also emphasized its
rejection of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and terrorism
Obviously, those statements of principle are no more law than the
Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution or the
Gettysburg Address, but I can't find a lot to complain about there.
Can you provide a source for your claim that the LTNC or any other
likely political leader in the new regime is intent on imposing sharia
law? I'm no expert, but so far this has seemed like a fairly secular
movement. Yes, most of the leaders and fighters are Muslims, but most
of our leaders are Christians, and we're still thankfully some
distance from a theocratic state.
And are likely to remain so until the Perry-Bachmann-Palin crowd takes
over and imposes their dominionist view of things.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
I need to check with Matt Drudge on this one.
rich...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't need to.
It's right from that right wing organization, the BBC.
Look here
But don't feel bad; I understand that Justice Sotomayor will be a
consultant there.
Pat
>
> But don't feel bad; I understand that Justice Sotomayor will be a
> consultant there.
Ah, your source is "Religion in Politics in Wilmington Delaware."
What a coincidence! That's where I go to get all my information on
international politics, too. Don't know how I missed it.
Richard, the document cited - and which the BBC did report on,
together with background on some members of the LNTC -- is an unsigned
'Draft document for the Transitional phase.' It has no current legal
basis.
'Sharia Law,' of course is the buzzword here, a phrase which is
guaranteed to rile the masses in this Islamophobic country. But
'sharia law' is interpreted differently in every Muslim country; the
customs and significance of sharia law in Taliban Afghanistan and
Saudi Arabia bears little resemblance to its role in Istanbul or
Beirut.
In some respects, Sharia Law resembles 'civil law' in that involves
many centuries of precedent; in some ways in resembles Mosaic law, and
like it, has ultra-orthodox adherents, orthodox adherents,
conservative adherents, and reform adherents, all of whom have varying
views on social and religious customs and observances.
So, first of all it's not in place yet, and secondly no one has any
clear idea of what form of sharia law might possibly result from its
imposition.
At this point I'll take my chances with the new regime and happily say
goodby to the illegitimate rule of Qadaffi.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat, I hope you are not holding the Democratic majority in Delaware
against it. As one good Reublican to another, I urge you not to.
Christine O'Donnell may be down, but she's not out. Or is it the other
way around? Which-ever.
I had no affection for Omar Q (and probably have very little affection
for anyone named Omar, although Omar Bradley was pretty good, even if
he was no Curtis LeMay). I would have happily Qafaffi duck him blown
off the earth after Lockerbie. But we made him a poster boy a decade
or less ago, and whether good or bad, the outcome of this is not to me
wise in terms of shifting with the wind. It's another examply of
leading from behind (sic).
But what I would seriously ask you to do is to pay attention to your
statement, "At this point I'll take my chances with the new regime
and happily say goody to the illigitimate rule of Qafaffi."
Substitute "Sadam" for "Qadaffi" and you have the precise rationale of
Bush and much of America in our ill-begotten Iraq disaster. Einstein
couldln't quite grapple with the idea, fundamental to quantum
mechanics, that G-d rolled dice (that is, that some events at a
subatomic level occured by chance and not cause-and-effect), and it
seems that history has shown him to be wrong. I knew Einstein,
Einstein was a friend of mine, and Obama is no Einstein. (You are, of
course, but we have all promised to keep the issues of your birth
certificate under wraps). Neither he nor you should be playing dice
with this kind of regime change, any more than Bush should have.
All best
All best
Pat
wrote:
> But what I would seriously ask you to do is to pay attention to your
> statement, "At this point I'll take my chances with the new regime
> and happily say goody to the illigitimate rule of Qafaffi."
> Substitute "Sadam" for "Qadaffi" and you have the precise rationale of
> Bush and much of America in our ill-begotten Iraq disaster. .... Neither he nor you should be playing dice with this kind of regime change, any more than Bush should have.
I think you misunderstand the entire Iraq/Libya comparison. I don't
have anything much against 'regime change' per se, along as it is
pursued honestly and transparently AND PROVIDED THE COSTS ARE
COMMENSURATE WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES.
In the case of Iraq, the Bush people knew that they didn't much of a
chance of getting domestic support (and virtually no chance of
international support) for land-based military intervention. So they
concocted (or at the very least accepted with feckless credulousness)
the whole song-and-dance about WMD's and plans to put nuclear warheads
on ICBM's and the rest of it. And, while the outcome, for the
moment, seems to me better than most expected in 2006-2007, it has
come at very great cost. Or so it seems to this observer.
The Libya case is completely different. From the beginning Obama and
Clinton made it clear that 'Qadaffi must go' was an unwritten
corollary to the UN/NATO/Arab League authorizations to 'protect
civilians lives' -- i.e. that any and all anti-Qadaffi Libyan
civilians would probably need protection as long as Qadaffi remained
in power. And the cost to the coalition, thanks to effective
planning, execution, and sensible goal-setting, seems, so far, to have
been extremely low in lives, and unexpectedly low in dollars. And
this coalition seems to have accomplished its mission without all but
obliterating the infrastructure in the country they hope to rebuild.
Now it's entirely possible that the rebels will mishandle all sorts of
situations -- Lord knows that the recent governments in Iraq and
Afghanistan haven't exactly distinguished themselves. But it's
important to remember that neither did Cromwell's post-revolutionary
commonwealth in Britain, the post American revolution government under
the Articles of Confederation or France's Committee for Public Safety
-- building a nation and a government from scratch is never easy --
but it's difficult to see how the LTNC could be much worse than
Qadaffi.
It will help, I think, if the new government does not disqualify all
former Qadaffi-ites from serving in the new government, as we tried to
do with the Baath party in Iraq. Some of the cabinet and subcabinet
officials, surely, are capable people who know how to get things
done, and for whom loyalty to the old regime was the dark side of a
devil's bargain.
I will say this, though -- I do think the Obama administration should
have sought Congressional approval, under the 60-day limitation
imposed by the War Powers Act.
But ask yourself this -- isn't it a good thing that the US was able to
contribute to the ouster of a tyrranical middle-eastern regime -- and
yet be supported in so doing by virtually the entire Arab world?
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Bush/Iraq and Obama/
Libya experiences.
Building on that regional good will, perhaps, will allow us to tighten
the screws on Assad, who has proved himself to be just about as evil a
tyrant as either Saddam or Qadaffi.
Pat
rich...@gmail.com
I am kind of surpised where we both disagree and where we agree.
I am glad you agree on the need to go to Congress. I never thought in
my entire life I would ever have anything good to say about Senator
Byrd except that 1) he had left the Klan and 2) he was dead, but over
the past dozen years, with all administrations (and sadly, I think,
with those to come), he ends up being somewhat more on point than I
ever would have imagined.
You and I don't agree about regime change. If I am part of any party
at all - and I'm not, other than the Gay Nationalist Party, of which I
happen to be the titular leader - I am a kind of Taft (not daft)
Republican. I don't need to go through the points, you can do the
drill, but we just differ on that. Although I agree with you on the
motivations for the Bush intervention, the part you leave out was how
horrid Hussein was, which is much worse than Qadaffi. Bush
'personalized' it, in essence, in my view, and we know what came of
that, but I think that if it is justified to have regime change in
Libya, it was justified even more so in Iraq.
You, my friend, I think walk on very dangerous ground when you say
that we can titrate the 'costs' of such interventions, and then carry
them out approrpiately. I think your view here is not incongruous with
the rest of your political philosophy, which is, to put it overly
simply, that people can be made better through governement. Suffice it
to say we differ on this, but you have a kind of traditional
'liberal' (not in the current sense) view of the improvablilty of
mankind. It is one of our more profound differnces, when you take the
politics-of-the-day out of the equation. For you, it justifies a close-
to-if-not-completely-socialist point of view (not said critically, but
descriptively). Obviously I see things differently.
The ultimate problem is that 'regime change' is simply a prereogative
of the militarily powerful. It has no sense of right or wrong other
than that might makes right. It leads to complete and continuing chaos
based on who's on first in any given part of the world, and in
espousing it as a viable goal, I think you will make the same mistakes
that the Republicans made in capital letters under Bush.
The one point where I feel my thermometer climb is when you talk about
our 'popularity' in the rest of the Arab world. They are not children,
and it is a real kind of self-deception to think that they want
American (or European) intervention...even if they want it, they may
not want it to end when we want it to end, or when we lose interest,
and that way lies the creation of even more resentment. I suppose it
is remotely possible that Libya will have an appreciably different
government, but I see no real reason to think so. Most countries don't
create a different climate when they change leaders (especially if
that change if from the outside); they change faces and styles. And of
course that may all be much the worse.What if this new Libyan
government is worst (or Egypt). Do we intervene again. Are they are
protectorate now of ours (or Europe's)? Isn't what you are really
talking about a kind of Enlightened Colonialism?
We have horrible problems here at home, and they won't go away
quickly. Both parties lie about the economic situation (even if they
lie in different ways) because they don't want to expose their own
contributions to people believing we had more than either party told
us we had. The Big Lie is that we 'lost' a lot of money, and each
party wants credit for us 'having it' until it was lost (due to the
other party). The truth is that it was funny money, and we didn't have
it, period. The problems are almost insoluable, in my view, and we
have a generation of Americans in middle age, totally decent people
(except for the Democrats), who will never have the life they bought
into. I don't know what the solution is; I would even entertain higher
taxes if I thought it would help, but I am sure that the solution has
nothing to do with this kind of foreign adventurism by either party.
All best
A21²
wrote:
Personally, I blame the whole mess on Jesus Christ.
A21