Erick Erickson's Blog, page 172

Barack Obama Is Now Admitting Some of the Libyan Rebels May Not Be Friendly

This is so insane it makes my head hurt.

In an interview with NBC News and another with CBS News, Barack Obama is finally admitting some of the rebels we are helping in Libya may not be friendly to the United States.

"I'm not ruling it out. But I'm also not ruling it in," he added on NBC, but cautioned that though Washington's knowledge of the make-up of the rebels was improving, it was not yet comprehensive.

Those members of the Libyan opposition who had met top US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had been fully "vetted," he said. But some opposition individuals may be unfriendly to the United States, he added.

"That's why I think it's important for us not to jump in with both feet. But to carefully consider what are the goals of the opposition," Obama told CBS.

So, in other words, we're more fully engaged and committing Marines to the situation, but we are not yet sure what the goals are of the opposition. Likewise, "some opposition individuals may be unfriendly to the United States."

Um . . . which ones? And how can we be sure that, should things go the way Obama wants that these rebels don't wind up in charge?

He went in without a plan. This is what that looks like.

Morning Briefing for March 30, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For March 30, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

BREAKING NEWS: In a Human Events exclusive, Emily Miller has the details on a letter sent to Congress by several Governors, including Haley Barbour and Rick Perry, demanding Congress enact a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Governors Haley Barbour (R.-Miss.), Bob McDonnell (R.-Va.), and Rick Perry (R.-Tex.) sent a letter to the Democrat and Republican congressional leaders on Tuesday evening calling on them to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution.

"We believe it is time that the federal government be required to live within its means and balance its books every year, just as we are required to do in our respective states," wrote the three governors in a letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS.

Please click here for the rest of the breaking news story at Human Events.

1. Barack Obama Is Now Admitting Some of the Libyan Rebels May Not Be Friendly

2. On Intervention and Opposition to the Libyan Engagement

3. Liberals Continue All-Out Wisconsin Assault

4. Winning the Battle and Losing the War

5. Hey Senator Schumer, Who are the Real Extremists?

6. Wisconsin AFL-CIO Holds Joint Rally with Planned Parenthood

7. On Ethanol, Conservatives Should Stand With Tom Coburn

8. The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act & What Has Union Bosses in a Panic

———————————————————————-

1. Barack Obama Is Now Admitting Some of the Libyan Rebels May Not Be Friendly

This is so insane it makes my head hurt.

In an interview with NBC News and another with CBS News, Barack Obama is finally admitting some of the rebels we are helping in Libya may not be friendly to the United States.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. On Intervention and Opposition to the Libyan Engagement

Using the same rationale George W. Bush used to go into Iraq, Barack Obama has now gone into Libya.

It seems that the world is upside down. Suddenly Republicans are concerned about going into a Middle Eastern country and Democrats are gung-ho neocon warmongers.

The situation, of course, is not that simple.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Liberals Continue All-Out Wisconsin Assault

Having failed to protect their place at the government teat by bravely running away during the legislative session, Wisconsin liberals have apparently decided to win the fight by trying to remove conservatives from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which will presumably soon decide on whether the law stripping the public unions of collective bargaining power was properly passed. In the crosshairs right now is purportedly conservative Justice David Prosser. Now, Prosser has already been the subject of shenanigans from the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal members - background on that is here. The gist of that particular case is that one of the Court's liberal members accidentally-on-purpose leaked to the media that Prosser called one of the Court's liberal Justices a "total b*tch" in a closed-door session about an ethics complaint concerning one of the Court's other Justices.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Winning the Battle and Losing the War

Republicans have, of late, gotten very good at winning battles while losing wars. Look no further than Wisconsin. While the GOP got its legislative victory, the left is now intent on going gangbusters over recall efforts.

But before they even get there, the left is going after Justice David Prosser on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Leon has a good write up on this, but the nutshell here is very important — David Prosser is all that stands between the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipping to the left.

Do what you can to help re-elect David Prosser or the battle we just won will be thrown out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is that simple.

But there is more.

The GOP is not taking the recall threat in Wisconsin seriously. We've diverted our attention elsewhere and we need to gear back up. You need to pull out your credit cards and checkbooks and give every penny you can to the Wisconsin GOP right now.

Yes, you must.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Hey Senator Schumer, Who are the Real Extremists?

As the Democrats continue to bankrupt the nation with crushing debt, and stymie Republican attempts to balance the budget, we were beginning to wonder if they had their own plan to achieve budget solvency. The New York Times just revealed their monumental plan for the future of our fiscal stability. Drum roll……Labeling Republicans and tea partiers as extremists!

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Wisconsin AFL-CIO Holds Joint Rally with Planned Parenthood

Maybe if you've been a union member for some time, you've been able to avoid some level of discomfort over your union dues going to the political campaigns of Democrats. Maybe you're a hard-working conscientious person who can rationalize this by saying that, after all, the Democrats are more pro-union than Republicans, generally speaking. Maybe you were able to swallow your irritation at the massive union support for Obamacare despite knowing full well that Obamacare was likely to eliminate many working class jobs as companies could not afford to afford the mandate. Now, on the other hand, the Wisconsin AFL-CIO has gone one step farther to stand in defense of an organization - Planned Parenthood - that has nothing whatsoever to do with union or working issues. That's right: from now on you (or at least your union dues) are now in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. On Ethanol, Conservatives Should Stand With Tom Coburn

Tom Coburn, Ben Cardin, Charles Koch (yes, *that* Charles Koch), and others, want to end the ethanol subsidy. Grover Norquist who is as wrong on ethanol as he is on FedEx v. UPS and matters relating to Jihad, declares it to be a tax increase to get rid of the ethanol subsidy.

In a letter to Norquist, Coburn defends ending the subsidy.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

8. The FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act & What Has Union Bosses in a Panic

On Monday, the International Association of Machinists won an election to represent 2,900 employees at AirTran. The union (the same union calling for airline re-regulation) won despite the fact that 1,906 (nearly 66%) of AirTran's employees did not vote for unionization. In fact, 36% of the employees did not vote at all. The union's victory is a good example of how President Obama's union appointments at the National Mediation Board have changed 75 years worth of precedence in order to favor unions. It is also a good example of why the fight over the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011 is important and why the LaTourette/Costello Amendment to H.R. 658 should be defeated (again).

Please click here for the rest of the post.

More on Obama and Libya & Silver Bullets — The Erick Erickson Show

I'm going to give the definitive take on Barack Obama, the left, and Libya tonight on the Erick Erickson Show. You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

—————————————–

UPDATE: At 8:00 p.m., I'm going to talk about silver bullets.

If you are a tea party activist, you will want to tune in at 8:00 p.m. and find out what I'm talking about.

More on Obama and Libya — The Erick Erickson Show

I'm going to give the definitive take on Barack Obama, the left, and Libya tonight on the Erick Erickson Show. You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

On Ethanol, Conservatives Should Stand With Tom Coburn

Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) are out to get rid of the ethanol subsidy. The subsidy was put into the tax code to make it much harder to get rid of. How much harder?

Well, according to Grover Norquist, if we get rid of the ethanol subsidy, we are raising taxes.

I've written before how Grover Norquist gets lots of money from groups that lobby for special tax treatment and then, when Congress attempts to get rid of the special tax treatment that money has bought, Norquist screams about it being a tax increase.

It'd be quite a little racket he has going except that Americans for Tax Reform says there is no relation between the money they get and the "you're raising taxes" hoo-hah they raise. It's just businesses supporting a like-minded ally.

Notwithstanding that, many businesses in America hire lobbyists to complicate the tax code to benefit themselves in ways you and I are not so advantaged and then raise hell when conservatives try to level the playing field. Some of those same businesses then give Americans for Tax Reform money and ATR engages in keeping the tax code ridiculously complicated with screams of "tax increases" that are no such thing.

In fact, you and I forcibly having to give money to corn growers to make inefficient ethanol, which then directly corresponds to higher food prices, gas prices, and gas inefficiency is a tax increase that elimination of the subsidy will get rid of.

Tom Coburn, Ben Cardin, Charles Koch (yes, *that* Charles Koch), and others, want to end the ethanol subsidy. Grover Norquist who is as wrong on ethanol as he is on FedEx v. UPS and matters relating to Jihad, declares it to be a tax increase to get rid of the ethanol subsidy.

In a letter to Norquist, Coburn defends ending the subsidy. He points out:

Unfortunately, this is not the first time your organization has defended distortions in the tax code. In 2009, you defended a $246 million tax earmark for Hollywood movie producers. You opposed my amendment on the grounds that it was a "tax increase." Fortunately, dozens of Republicans who signed your pledge exercised good judgment and common sense and voted to help pass my amendment.

Now, your organization is working to protect an ethanol subsidy the Heritage Foundation and others have called a tax earmark because it is a special interest giveaway targeted to a narrow group of recipients. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste also supports my amendment and will consider any votes on the matter in their 2011 Congressional Ratings. As CCAGW President Tom Schatz wrote in support of my amendment, "At a time when the nation's debt has ballooned to more than $14.2 trillion, members of Congress should be looking for every viable way to cut wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative spending."

Industry leaders like Charles Koch of Koch Industries also oppose ethanol subsidies. Mr. Koch recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "[B]ecause of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol – and every other product in the marketplace – should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services."

Likewise, in a recent op-ed on the subject, Coburn gets to the heart of the matter:

First, the ethanol subsidy is a spending program, not a tax relief measure. If it were solely in the discretionary budget and controlled by the appropriators it would be unmasked as a rank cash payment. Instead, Congress has shifted the spending program to the tax code to protect it from being cut.

Two, this cash payment is nothing more than corporate welfare not-so-cleverly disguised as a tax break that, in the real world, has the impact of a tax increase.

As Pete Sepp with the National Taxpayers Union says, "the refundable VEETC is a prime example of tax policy at its worst. Congress needs to focus on simplifying the tax law and cutting rates for everyone, rather than manipulating the tax law and distorting our economy."

Coburn also points out that the ethanol subsidy directly relates to higher food prices:

Regarding food prices, CBO said, "The increased use of ethanol accounted for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008. In turn, that increase will boost federal spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp program) and child nutrition programs by an estimated $600 million to $900 million in FY 2009."

Oh, and the ethanol subsidy also contributes to damaging your car engine and decreases your fuel efficiency.

Some will say we must get rid of the ethanol subsidy and the ethanol mandate at the same time. Let's put them both on the table. For now, only the subsidy is on the table.

The reality is that once the subsidy is gone, the mandate will quickly disappear.

In the meantime, conservatives should stand with Coburn and Koch, not Norquist and the corn growers lobby.

On Intervention and Opposition to the Libyan Engagement

"Right now, the best case is simply to sit back and root for injuries between the warring parties in Libya — not intervening for either side."

Using the same rationale George W. Bush used to go into Iraq, Barack Obama has now gone into Libya.

It seems that the world is upside down. Suddenly Republicans are concerned about going into a Middle Eastern country and Democrats are gung-ho neocon warmongers.

The situation, of course, is not that simple.

Whether you think he lied, was misled, or was right, George W. Bush did make a case to Congress and the American people prior to going into Iraq that Iraq was training Al Qaeda and, given its weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda, was an imminent threat to the United States.

Again, you can think he lied. You can think he was misled. You can think he was right.

But Bush went to the United Nations, got the appropriate resolutions, went before the American people to make his case, and before going into Iraq received Congressional approval. In fact, it took him a year and a half to make his case. When he went in, he had 80% public approval and a much larger international coalition than Obama is taking with him.

He also could articulate an idea for an endpoint, whether you liked it or not.

Feel free to disagree with every justification and feel free to disagree with his idea of an endpoint, but recognize the factual timeline.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has failed at several of these things.

He did not persuade the American people prior to intervention that the need was there. In fact, while Bush had support from 80% of the public, Obama isn't cracking 48% for Libya.

Obama did not make his case to Congress and did not get any sort of Congressional resolution prior to engaging in Libya. He, not Bush, rushed to war . . . er . . . to kinetic military action.

All of that, though, is fungible and can be nitpicked over. Here, though, is where many Republicans, including myself, get off the intervention boat.

We know very little about the rebels we are helping.

From what we do know, a few things are ascertainable:

The rebels are behaving as savagely as Gaddafi.
The rebels are supported by Al Qaeda.
By their own admission, many of the rebels were in Iraq fighting the United States before going home to fight Gaddafi.
After 2001, Gaddafi was one of the most vocal and aggressive Arab leaders against Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is more of a threat to the United States than Gaddafi.

With those points, many of us who are sympathetic to the idea of intervention are opposed to the intervention for the very simple reason that the regime we are supporting may be as bad, if not worse, than the regime we are opposing.

Right now, the best case is simply to sit back and root for injuries between the warring parties in Libya — not intervening for either side.

Oh, and if we are not interested in regime change and Gaddafi stays, he will become the menace to the United States he has not been since the 80's.

Winning the Battle and Losing the War

Republicans have, of late, gotten very good at winning battles while losing wars. Look no further than Wisconsin. While the GOP got its legislative victory, the left is now intent on going gangbusters over recall efforts.

But before they even get there, the left is going after Justice David Prosser on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Leon has a good write up on this, but the nutshell here is very important — David Prosser is all that stands between the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipping to the left.

Do what you can to help re-elect David Prosser or the battle we just won will be thrown out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is that simple.

But there is more.

The GOP is not taking the recall threat in Wisconsin seriously. We've diverted our attention elsewhere and we need to gear back up. You need to pull out your credit cards and checkbooks and give every penny you can to the Wisconsin GOP right now.

Yes, you must.

You and I have both been championing what happened in Wisconsin. We will ultimately lose if we do not defend the ground we won.

The GOP is very good about winning the battle and losing the war. This is a war we dare not lose. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.

The Stupid Party Prepares to Get Down Right Dumb

While we've all been focused on the Administration's schizophrenia over Libya, there is another political battle being fought in the halls of Congress over the budget.

The starting point for this is this report from Emily Miller at Human Events. The key take away is that "the Senate Republicans are preparing to tell President Obama that they want a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution passed in Congress in exchange for raising the statuary debt ceiling above $14.2 trillion."

We can now turn to my friend Dan Mitchell who explains exactly how stupid this GOP strategy is. The GOP, in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling, is not saying "give us the BBA or no debt ceiling increase." The GOP is instead saying "give us a vote on it."

Well, as Dan further points out, the GOP already got a vote on the BBA on March 2nd and it failed. So, the GOP is saying, "Let us lose another vote on the BBA in exchange for a debt ceiling increase or else." Or else what?

This is stupid for a variety of reasons and Dan Mitchell sums them up pretty succinctly.

The GOP is not telling the Democrats they actually want the Balanced Budget Amendment, just a vote. This is wholly unacceptable. If Barack Obama wants to increase the debt ceiling, the GOP should go all or nothing — they must have their Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for it. A vote is utter nonsense without a commitment from the Democrats to pass it by a two-thirds vote from both Houses.

But it gets more insane from there. Everything we feared, everything we knew would happen, is coming to fruition.

Let's start with the contra-indicator that we are right: Fred Barnes.

Fred is the guy who coined the term "big government conservative" as a way to defend Bush's big government agenda. I like him very much, but he has become the guy the GOP leaders go to so he can parrot their talking points with a veneer of "conservatives are okay with us." They typically do that when they are behaving badly.

So Fred Barnes tells us not to panic because Republicans are winning the budget fight. That means precisely that the GOP is losing the budget fight.

How are we losing the budget fight? Well, for actual reporting let's go to CNN's Dana Bash who tells us that we are yet again at an impasse and on the verge of a government shutdown.

Why? Because the GOP is finally being forced by the base to push for actual, substantive spending cuts instead of the death by a thousand paper cuts strategy of the leadership. That necessitated the Barnes column where he advocates for the leadership's incremental spending cuts strategy.

Luckily for us, conservatives made such a stink about the last short term CR being, in fact, the last short term CR, the GOP is now forced to be a leader. The leaders are, however, reluctant.

Look, it is very simple — demand passage of a balanced budget amendment, defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and if the Democrats balk, shut the government down.

Unfortunately for you and me, the GOP leadership is scared to death of and hell bent on avoiding a government shutdown. They may have no choice, so they better get ready.

Fred Barnes's pitch that the GOP is winning is the best indication yet that the GOP is about to lose. They are left now rolling the budget debate into the debt ceiling debate and insisting not on passage of a balanced budget amendment, but on a vote on a balanced budget amendment.

Hey, I know! Why don't they get the Democrats to vote on defunding Obamacare too instead of, you know, actually defunding it.

Morning Briefing for March 29, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For March 29, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Obama's Not Just Bombing Libya: The Main Course Speech That Felt More Like an Appetizer

2. Regime Change for Sissies

3. The Stupid Party Prepares to Get Down Right Dumb

4. More Libya Muddling from the White House (and from President Obama)

5. The Left Riots Because It Works Like Perdition

6. California Moving to Strip Secret Ballots from Farm Workers, Fine Employers

7. No More Extensions of Unemployment Benefits

———————————————————————-

1. Obama's Not Just Bombing Libya: The Main Course Speech That Felt More Like an Appetizer

You might have heard that President Obama (finally) gave a speech about the shelling of Libya he ordered well over a week ago. Or, you might not have; he's been trying pretty hard to keep our involvement in it out of the public eye, despite the US having the leading role in every phase of this "kinetic military action" except (1) decision-making, and (2) actually talking publicly about what the heck it is that we're doing there.

The speech can be boiled down into five basic phrases, four of which carry qualifiers:

(1) It's the U.S.'s role to intervene anywhere that there are atrocities or persecution going on, unless there's a vital national interest there and/or they have the ability to shoot back at us in any meaningful form whatsoever;

(2) Our goal is not to depose Qaddafi, whatever I may have said yesterday, last week, etc., except when it is our goal, which is whenever it isn't not our goal to do so;

(3) This will not be like the Iraq kinetic military action, because that one wasn't referred to by such a clever, lawyerly phrase, and because that "regime change…took 8 years" [Note: This supposed history savant is only off by about 7 years and 11 months on that figure], except that regime change isn't our goal (see #2 above);

(4) The U.S. will prevail in Libya, except that we won't be the ones doing it - NATO will - and, to ensure that this is true, we're going to refrain from consistently communicating any goals whatsoever for our mission there, even as we send pilots (and, not at all unlikely, specialized ground forces) into harm's way in pursuit of some nebulous objective which, again, we're not going to bother telling you about; and,

(5) To quote Jim Geraghty, "Look, I realize none of you understand my decision making, but at the end of the day, you can rest easy knowing I'm right."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Regime Change for Sissies

Now let me be clear?—?I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . .

Barack Obama in 2002.

This was perhaps the most vapid and shallow Presidential speech on a military engagement since . . . well . . . I don't know when.

The President said we were against regime change in Libya, but made clear that regime change is the goal. He wants to be engaged without being engaged. He says we are passing the whole operation off to NATO as if we'll suddenly become only involved in an ancillary capacity. This left Ambassador John Bolton to exclaim on Fox News that Barack Obama may be the only man in the whole world who does not know that we, the United States, run NATO.

The President failed in any way, shape, or form to show how our national interests are at stake. Likewise, in his explanation of why we are in LIbya, the explanation fits Yemen, Syria, and Iran.

As Joe Scarborough asked on twitter, are Libyan lives more valuable than those of Syria, Yemen, or Iran?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The Stupid Party Prepares to Get Down Right Dumb

While we've all been focused on the Administration's schizophrenia over Libya, there is another political battle being fought in the halls of Congress over the budget.

The starting point for this is this report from Emily Miller at Human Events. The key take away is that "the Senate Republicans are preparing to tell President Obama that they want a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution passed in Congress in exchange for raising the statuary debt ceiling above $14.2 trillion."

We can now turn to my friend Dan Mitchell who explains exactly how stupid this GOP strategy is. The GOP, in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling, is not saying "give us the BBA or no debt ceiling increase." The GOP is instead saying "give us a vote on it."

Well, as Dan further points out, the GOP already got a vote on the BBA on March 2nd and it failed. So, the GOP is saying, "Let us lose another vote on the BBA in exchange for a debt ceiling increase or else." Or else what?

This is stupid for a variety of reasons.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. More Libya Muddling from the White House (and from President Obama)

The "handover to NATO" bit that Obama has been promising for the last week hasn't completely happened yet (though in fairness, it hasn't just been NATO; they're just the only ones who've actually agreed to hold a portion of this hot potato that Obama has been trying like crazy to pass off ever since the American T-LAMs started flying from the Med into Libya), as American aircraft flew well over half of this past weekend's sorties against Qaddafi's military and air defense installations.

Further, contra what General Ham said a week ago today (which I'm sure was the best translation he could accomplish of the ridiculously mixed signals coming out of the nation's center of power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as well as from President Obama), not only is the US not backing off its operational tempo over Libya, but, according to reports, including this one from the AP, those weekend sorties included offensive missions flown by A-10s and AC-130s.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. The Left Riots Because It Works Like Perdition

Leftists riot against austerity budgets for the same reasons Radical Islamists attempt terrorist attacks against American targets. They both lost any semblance of rational argument against the conditions they face in the modern world. Furthermore, the Greek Austerity riots, like the 9-11 Attacks, worked like Perdition. When in doubt, you call the last play that scored you a touchdown.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. California Moving to Strip Secret Ballots from Farm Workers, Fine Employers

With the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act "basically dead" for now, union bosses are still finding ways to try to fill their coffers with new members any way they can. At the state level, since agricultural workers are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, the United Farm Workers is using the farm worker exemption to its advantage—and counting on newly-elected Democrat Governor Jerry Brown to help it.

On Sunday, while small marches took place around California commemorating Cesar Chavez Day, the United Farm Workers (the union that the late Cesar Chavez co-founded and led) issued a press release announcing their ongoing push for California SB 104, the "Fair Treatment for Farm Workers Act."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. No More Extensions of Unemployment Benefits

Amidst record long-term unemployment, Democrats are trying to extend unemployment welfare yet again. Will Republicans continue to obediently follow them in accelerating more creeping socialism? Or will last December serve as the Republicans' final act to perpetuate unemployment welfare?

Beware the doomsday TARP coalition of Republicans. Conservatives must be ever vigilant of those Republicans who are willing to vote for an entitlement program one last time with the alleged purpose of precluding an economic apocalypse.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Regime Change for Sissies

UPDATE: The Associated Press, of all organizations, is fact checking Barack Obama and he isn't exactly coming up smelling like roses. It' time to go back to Pinocchiobama.

By the way, what's the difference between Pinocchio and Obama? Pinocchio had no strings attached.

———————-

Now let me be clear?—?I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . .

Barack Obama in 2002.

This was perhaps the most vapid and shallow Presidential speech on a military engagement since . . . well . . . I don't know when.

The President said we were against regime change in Libya, but made clear that regime change is the goal. He wants to be engaged without being engaged. He says we are passing the whole operation off to NATO as if we'll suddenly become only involved in an ancillary capacity. This left Ambassador John Bolton to exclaim on Fox News that Barack Obama may be the only man in the whole world who does not know that we, the United States, run NATO.

The President failed in any way, shape, or form to show how our national interests are at stake. Likewise, in his explanation of why we are in LIbya, the explanation fits Yemen, Syria, and Iran.

As Joe Scarborough asked on twitter, are Libyan lives more valuable than those of Syria, Yemen, or Iran?

The only significant explanation he gave was a refugee and humanitarian criss with refugees streaming over the Libyan border. Since December of 2010, 100,000 refugees from Darfur have streamed over the border.

Why are we not there?

This speech was an embrace of George W. Bush without conviction. Apparently, the metrics for the Libyan operation will be, I guess, on LIbyans saved or created. Or something like that. The speech had Bill Kristol praising Obama who, by the way, met with Bill Kristol in advance. I wonder how the left likes their Messiah morphing into a neocon warmonger?!

On Twitter, we'd say #fail.