« The secret to targeted assassinations abroad... | Main | "The maple kind? Yea?" »

If It Weren't For Double Standards, They'd Have No Standards At All

Normally, I don't respond to my colleagues' postings. Wizbang isn't so much a "group blog" as a common area where a bunch of disparate authors take turns at the podium. But sometimes I have to disagree with one of my colleagues publicly.

And sometimes I need to follow up or respond to one of them.

And times like these, I feel the need to expand on one of their points.

Rick talked about the hypocrisy of the left in regards to President Obama's policies towards terrorists. I agree with what he wrote, but I think the subject could withstand a bit more discussion from a slightly different perspective.

It's becoming clearer as times go on that there was virtually no chance that Bin Laden would have been taken alive. Even if he'd been found stark naked, lying on his stomach, with his hands outstretched or folded behind his neck, he could have been lying on a grenade and still posed a threat. So he was coming back at room temperature.

Likewise, there is currently a "kill" order on Anwar al-Alwaki, the Al Qaeda leader who was born in the United States and still holds American citizenship. And the Obama War on Terror Overseas Contingency Operations has made its hallmark not capturing terrorists, but killing them on sight -- preferably from missiles fired from drones. No attempt to capture, no attempt to bring them to trial, just kill them on sight.

Now, it must be stated that I have no problems with these policies. It seems that Rick doesn't, either. Nor do a lot of conservatives. There's a saying in Texas -- allegedly a defense against murder charges -- that "some people just need killing." And we recognize that.

We have no problem with that. But a lot of Obama's base does.

Or, at least, they did before Obama became the guy ordering the hits.

Some are still consistent. For example, Noam Chomsky is appalled that we didn't treat Bin Laden as a "suspect" and send in cops to arrest him.  Glenn Greenwald (or, perhaps, it was Thomas Ellers or Rick Ellensburg  -- they all look alike to me) isn't too thrilled about it, either.

Now, if Obama's supporters have really "seen the light" and are on board with the policies that we on the right have been supporting all along, then fine. Welcome aboard. But an acknowledgement in this sea change would be nice. Otherwise, it just looks like they're more concerned with supporting Obama than maintaining any kind of consistency or principles.

Again, no problem with that. But a touch of honesty would be nice.

So, my challenge to the left (yes, Chico, I'm talking to you specifically, but many others as well) is this: are you OK with Obama ordering the deaths of terrorists without benefit of trial, without even an attempt to arrest them or take them alive? And would you have been just as OK with it had it been done under George W. Bush?

Similarly, George W. Bush got Congressional approval for both the incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. They've been dismissed by the left as fraudulent or invalid somehow, but they don't seem to mind Obama's attacks on Libya with the consent of the UN and our allies -- but never even broached the subject with Congress before the first bomb dropped. Why was that OK?

I know the answers, of course. (It's always dangerous to ask questions to which you don't know the answers.) But it should be entertaining to hear the rationalizations they come up with.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41541.

Comments (64)

Inviting chico to mess his ... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Inviting chico to mess his depends again in 3..2..1

Jay TeaThis sums u... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay Tea

This sums up the "discussion" that Chico and I are having.

The left has so much invested in the "Bush is evil, illegal, immoral, and a war criminal" mantra that they bend themselves in Pretzels when Obama does the same thing Bush did.
----------

CHICO

Your reasoning was that Obama didnt need congressional approval to go into Pakistan due to the authorization of force by Congress. Also you insist that the UN didnt need to be involved since it was a matter of self protection.

Yet that same authorization which you cites as authorization for Obama to invade Pakistan

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

States
IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism.


Now I have no problem with this statue being used as authorization for the entire Pakistan raid. NONE WHATSOEVER despite what Chico is trying to imply.

However, CHICO, since you used the above authorization than you have totally and completely invalidated the following arguments from the left regarding Bush:

Iraq was illegal and immoral
waterboarding was illegal
wiretapping was illegal
GITMO is illegal detention of prisoners


Now you have to either agree with the above statement Chico or prove yourself just another Obamabot koolaid drinking 2 faced asshat hypocrit who lets his statements be swayed by which party does the action in question and who cant think for yourself.

Which is it Chico?

I realize you're not addres... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

I realize you're not addressing to me... still, I feel the need to state and be clear that I give full acknowledgement and thanks to Obama for his part in the killing of ObL, whatever his part was. While the world may only be a slightly safer place, it is at the same time an undeniably better place without that monster walking around.

I don't know if the President ordered the kill, or merely went along with a plan for a kill, or just didn't veto the plan to kill. It doesn't matter to me. Osama bin Laden is dead and gone. Two thumbs up Mr. President. I support your actions in this matter.

BTW ChicoWho voted... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Chico

Who voted for the resolution of which you are parading around

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-281

Yea DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]
Yea MA Kennedy, Edward [D]

In fact it was a 98-0 vote with a dem held senate.

Double standards indeed! So... (Below threshold)
yttik:

Double standards indeed! Something else that is done to justify the hypocrisy is victim worship. Obama is not to blame for Gitmo because he's just a victim of Bush's policies and inherited the problem. Obama is not responsible for any of the wars because Hillary is probably manipulating him. Obama is good and golden and wants to do the right thing, it's just that he's a powerless victim of previous administrations, and corporations, and capitalism, and congress, and the evil Republicans, and the alignment of the stars. The more of a helpless victim Obama is, the more the left idolizes him. That was the point of all the racism charges, the claims that he was a poor child raised by a mother on food stamps. The left always has to be in protect, defend, rescue mode, even to the point of totally destroying the ones they claim to care so much about.

Jay TeaI did see w... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Jay Tea

I did see where Chico stated he was against Libya.

However his (and the left's) double standards are amazingly obvious and I doubt he will give any meaningful answer to the simple YEs NO questions I asked in the other thread or address the points I have made above. It would totally go against the "bush is evil" mime drilled into their heads.

I'll give this a shot.<br /... (Below threshold)
James H:

I'll give this a shot.


  1. I am willing to distinguish between, say, Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Whatshisname, on the one hand, and some of the Bush-era cases on the other. In the case of bin Laden and al-Whatshisname, you're talking about highly visible leaders in an NGO that has openly declared hostilities with the United States. On the technical level, there is some difference between "war," which is only conducted between states, and an NGO. But I'm OK with treating the bin Laden and al-Whatshisface policies as the equivalent of targeted attacks against enemy military leaders. And I would even be OK with it if the United States had executed a kill mission against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Unlike some folks on the left, I am, in fact, willing to treat al-Qaida's terrorism as war rather than crime. That said, however, if the United States captures a belligerent, rather than killing him on the battlefield, then a different set of duties comes into play. Among other things, if Osama bin Laden had visibly surrendered, waved the white flag, and so forth, then he should have been captured, rather than killed. But honestly ... I'm willing to live with his death. Not because Obama is president, but because Osama needed to die.

And if you've decided to treat his acts as crime, rather than war, then that person has the right to a trial, to be captured rather than killed, and so forth.

Which is why I prefer to treat a-Q as "war." It's more convenient and it's closer to the truth.

  • 2) My quarrel with the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars (moreso with Iraq) has generally been a policy quarrel, not a procedural quarrel. President Bush did indeed seek congressional authority for his actions, even as his administration maintained it already had that authority. But at the same time, I argued then (and I believe now) that the Iraq invasion was a poor choice. Not an illegitimate choice, just a poor choice.
  • And I can't help thinking that Congress's open-ended AUMF resembled the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, giving the president untrammeled authority when a resolution more limited in scope would have been appropriate.

    From a procedural standpoint, my disagreement with the AUMFs is based not on a quarrel with President Bush, but rather on my belief that declarations of war would have been more appropriate, if only because it would require members of Congress to pledge their reputations and political careers to the war, rather than dodge their responsibility as legislators.


    If the left did not have do... (Below threshold)
    Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

    If the left did not have double standards they'd have no standards at all.

    In my case, the Left needs ... (Below threshold)
    James H:

    In my case, the Left needs better HTML coding skills.

    First, I'm not a leftist, I... (Below threshold)
    Chico:

    First, I'm not a leftist, I'm just anti-fuckup and anti-unnecessary war, and pro-Bill of Rights. Which is why I am more critical of Bush. Because he was a fuckup who got us into two huge wars while failing to actually get the bad guys who attacked us.

    To take some of JT's and retired's points:

    The cause of war was, and central struggle is against, the Al Qaeda organization which planned and executed 9/11. OBL declared war against the USA before 9/11. 9/11 was, I think you would agree, a serious attack against the USA. AUMF I authorized military force against those planning and executing the attacks. So how could anyone have a problem with the killing of Bin Laden? Zawahiri, Alwaki, Gadahn are also fair game by taking leadership roles in Al Qaeda, which is planning attacks on the USA. The mission against Bin Laden is exactly the way things should be done, not invading whole countries and occupying them for years.

    Now, Iraq had not attacked the USA, Bin Laden was not there. Invading Iraq was not only a diversion of resources better used to get Al Qaeda, it became a huge waste of human life and money in itself. In the end, we have an Iraq hugely under the influence of Iran. Yes, Saddam was bad. There are lots of bad dictators in the world - we don't waste American lives and $1 trillion getting rid of them. I hope Obama keeps his promise to get out this year. It will be the end of a fiasco.

    I am against the intervention in Libya for some of the same reasons - Qadaffi was not a threat to the USA anymore - but so far the scale of US involvement in Libya is a tiny fraction of the cost of Iraq. No US casualties, and from what I've seen recently, we are pretty much getting out of it and leaving it to Europe. Which would be good policy.

    Bush threw out many US laws - against listening to our international phone calls, against torture. No AUMF authorized torture. There is no international law expert who would say that waterboarding is not torture, and remember, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved by Bush also included the use of cold rooms and cold water to produce shivering, prolonged standing, sleep deprivation, loud noise - all things we prosecuted as war crimes after WWII. In addition, Bush came up with new torture techniques like putting guys in boxes with bugs and making them wear soiled diapers for a couple of days. There were innocent people swept up and killed under torture. That's not the USA the world used to rely on to defend human rights.

    I can thank the President f... (Below threshold)
    recovered liberal democrat:

    I can thank the President for this. Actually making the only decision that he could. In the job description of CEO of the U.S. it is not outside his call of duty. What has to be twisting the guts of the left is that it will be very easy for the next president, hopefully a convservative, to execute his job as Commander-in Chief thanks to the precedent set by Obamalala.

    Oh, yes, the Libya interven... (Below threshold)
    James H:

    Oh, yes, the Libya intervention. I oppose it for several reasons:


    • There has been no congressional AUMF or declaration of war. Also, there is so far no evidence that Libya poses some kind of threat to the United States or has bankrolled al-Qaida or taken hostile action against US interests in recent memory.

    • From a colonialist standpoint, Western powers occasionally look to interests in their former colonies. Libya was a French colony, so I do not see how the United States bears any responsibility in Libya.

    • I have yet to see any articulation that US interests are served through the Libyan intervention.


    Mind you, I could live with other forms of intervention, including providing AWACS support or humanitarian aid for refugees. But direct military intervention is unwarranted.

    The only possible justification I can see here is as a form of payback for allies that assisted the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. And even that is a thin justification.

    "Bush came up with new tort... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    "Bush came up with new torture techniques like putting guys in boxes with bugs and making them wear soiled diapers for a couple of days."


    Ha ha, yes the evil Bushhitler cabal again/. Where do you get this stuff? Michael Moore?

    In short Chico. Whatever B... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    In short Chico. Whatever Bush did was wrong and what ever Obama does is right. Gotcha.

    ------------

    Jay Tea

    You should have worded it like this.

    If Bush was President last weekend than the left would have

    a. been calling him a war criminal
    b. Wondering why he didnt get congressinoal authorizaton
    c. Asking why wasnt Pakistan consulted.
    d. Calling him a murderer since OBL was unarmed when he was killed.
    e. Congressional investigations would be going to determine who knew what when and who is trying to cover it up
    f. The NY TIMES would be asking why Bush knew where OBL had been for months but didnt act
    g. Conspiracies about BUSH and OBL being in cahoots since Bush didnt act sooner
    h. Names and addresses of the Navy SEALs would be printed in the newspapers and they would be up on charges.
    i. Code Pink demonstrations against the murderers and baby killers.

    and the list goes on.

    And remember Jay Tea<... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    And remember Jay Tea

    YOu can kill them, you just cant waterboard them or umm "put them in boxes with bugs and making them wear soiled diapers for a couple of days."


    Really Chico? Bush invented that. I seem to remember reading american POWs in Vietnam being put in holes filled with water and snakes for days on end or having rats investing the mud caves they were being held in.


    Chico:... (Below threshold)
    Stan:

    Chico:

    Bush threw out many US laws - against listening to our international phone calls…

    The Congress authorized this law. A Democrat controlled Congress at that, as part of the Patriot Act. Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Ted (Chivas) Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, all voted for this law when it came up for the vote. Now they are vehemently denying that they did so. Except Kennedy, who now is taking a dirt nap. So don't go around spreading more bullshit than there already is around your chair

    ChicoCongress auth... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Chico

    Congress authorized to do what he thought he needed to do. That was the SAME AUTHORIZATION that you cited that made it okay for Obama to go into Pakistan.

    I gave you two choices above.

    Your choice

    "prove yourself just another Obamabot koolaid drinking 2 faced asshat hypocrit who lets his statements be swayed by which party does the action in question and who cant think for yourself."

    The knight from Ind Jones and the Holy Grail - "He chose poorly"

    "There were innocent people... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    "There were innocent people swept up and killed under torture. That's not the USA the world used to rely on to defend human rights."


    No, but it does resemble the Democrats who populate political circles and are all for using these techniques and more on the unborn.

    Did you say human rights?

    No, but it does re... (Below threshold)
    James H:
    No, but it does resemble the Democrats who populate political circles and are all for using these techniques and more on the unborn.

    And they accuse me of causing thread drift.

    ""There were innocent peopl... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    ""There were innocent people swept up and killed under torture"

    Really Chico. How about naming some.

    Your statement is full of democratic lies and talking points.

    In short you have proven yourself

    " just another Obamabot koolaid drinking 2 faced asshat hypocrit who lets his statements be swayed by which party does the action in question and who cant think for yourself."

    At the considerable risk of... (Below threshold)
    Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

    At the considerable risk of throwing pearls of wisdom before swines of leftist emotion...

    NGO Warfare. An NGO which engages in warfare against a Nation State is gambling that the Nation State will respond via domestic law vice the Customary Laws of Warfare. Under the Customary Laws of Warfare it would be difficult for the NGO's operatives to qualify as legal combatants, and impossible for them to do so if engaged in terrorism.

    The consequences of an NGO being treated as belligerent illegal combatants are:

    1. As combatants they may be engaged with lethal force and no warning whenever located.
    2. Neutrality requires that Nation States which harbor the NGO and/or its operatives must either prevent them from engaging in hostile actions against the Nation State with which the NGO is at war or risk being drawn into the conflict as a co-belligerent of the NGO.

      This is why Pakistan is being relatively muted in their protests about United States violation of their sovereign territory.


    3. Illegal Combatants are not subject to international protections for captured combatants. They may be interrogated and disposed of at the discretion of the Nation State which captures them. Nor is there any requirement to release such captured illegal combatants until the cessation of hostilities between the NGO and the Nation State.

    4. Quarter (acceptance of enemy surrender) is subject to the reciprocal nature of the Customary Laws of Warfare. If one party demonstrates a policy of not accepting surrenders (as al Qaeda has) the Nation State which is engaged in hostilities with the that party is under no obligation to accept surrenders.

    Under this reading there is NO issue with the operation which killed ObL.

    The left committed to a rather different reading during the Bush Administration, and went so far as accusing the Bush Administration of War Crimes. Were they to apply the same reading they applied to Bush to 0bama, they would have to accuse 0bama of war crimes as well. Instead they now try to ignore or obfuscate their former positions.

    I hope you guys are happy n... (Below threshold)
    Bruce Henry:

    I hope you guys are happy now, but I'm sure you're probably not.

    Between James H and Chico, you got a couple of well reasoned responses to Jay Tea's questions about double standards. What do we see in response from the usual suspects? Ignoring the points these two guys made so well, dreaming up what SURELY BEYOND ALL DOUBT would have happened had Bush hypothetically "got 'im dead or alive" as he promised, and, from one genius, sputtering about "...but, but, ...abortion!"

    Liberals might not be consistent, but Wizbang commenters, as a group, damn sure are.

    Chico #10,I am going... (Below threshold)
    DaveD:

    Chico #10,
    I am going to assume that although you have major issues with George W Bush you would answer Jay Tea's question in the affirmative. The assassination of bin Laden would have been fine with you whether Bush or Obama ordered. You have a real immature hang up at being unable to compliment Bush about anything. The question is quite specific and all you would have to say is that you would have agreed with Bush if he had made the same decision Obama did. You were not asked to give a critique of his entire 8 years in the White House.

    And back to your torture stance. You know, Obama came into office figuring he could ignore the policies of all previous administrations and be the transformational president. I guess his blank slate (or whatever) analogy was not only for us but for him as well. If what we understand at this point is true, then the path to bin Laden in Pakistan (which was probably not a surprise in the end) began with a detainee who was "inconvenienced" during the Bush administration. How ironic. The president has the awesome responsibility for managing the security of this country and, in fact, the world in many cases. I consider Bush a very moral man but I also am vaguely aware of what his responsibilities are and how fickle the public is when any weakness in the chief executive surfaces. Your strong moral stance is admirable and as I said in another post you would obviously be willing to sacrifice a loved one to maintain that stance. I hope some day you experience moral conflict.

    By the way, do you feel we should pull our troops from all locations around the world? As far as just wars go, I assume you felt the first Gulf War was wrong as well?

    Under this reading... (Below threshold)
    James H:
    Under this reading there is NO issue with the operation which killed ObL.

    Works for me.

    And here DaveD comes along ... (Below threshold)
    Bruce Henry:

    And here DaveD comes along and makes a liar out of me by posting a thoughtful, well-reasoned conservative comment. Oh well.

    "But it should be entertain... (Below threshold)
    GarandFan:

    "But it should be entertaining to hear the rationalizations they come up with."

    Not only entertaining, but highly predictable.

    But the hypocrisy stopped bothering them a long time ago.

    Just ask Nancy.

    Bruce Henry"Ignori... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Bruce Henry

    "Ignoring the points these two guys made so well, dreaming up what SURELY BEYOND ALL DOUBT "

    Talk about ignoring points

    Chico's point

    ""There were innocent people swept up and killed under torture"

    I asked him who. I have yet to receive a response

    Chico's point

    ", Bush came up with new torture techniques like putting guys in boxes with bugs and making them wear soiled diapers for a couple of days."

    Chico's point

    " No AUMF authorized torture"

    By torture he means waterboarding.
    I pointed out the authorization which stated and I quote again

    \IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
    or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism


    Really Bruce?? really. Now we have Bush inventing torture techniques. Is that a point? Or a lauaghable ascertation. What are we suppsoed to do? Prove that he didnt? You cant prove a negative Bruce.

    I made several points above Chico's "points". I have yet to get a response. I have asked him simple yes or no questions. I have yet to get a response.

    As to Chico's ascertations that Bush did things illegal I point to the same FUCKING RESOLUTION THAT HE STATED GAVE OBAMA AUTHORIZATION TO GO INTO PAKISTAN. Just because the truth up and bitchslapped him in the face it isnt my fault. Hell I even showed where VP BIDEN voted for the RESOLUTION THAT BUSH USED. What more do you want me to do for Chico give him a white cane and a guide dog?

    What do you wnat us to do Bruce. Bow down to his "points" while totalling ignoring the truth??

    Oh and stating that the left is for human rights and is for the killing of 30 million unborn children is the epitamy of hypocracy.

    The left's motto. You cant waterboard terrorists but you can kill them and oh by the way lets kill all the unborn kids we can as well.

    Maybe if Chico tried addressing points and questions asked of him Bruce then maybe then we could have a conversation. Have you ever seen me dodge a question that you asked of me? Has anyone on the left on this board ever seen me dodge a question that they know I saw and not answer it straight?
    Simple yes or no question there Bruce. We have sparred before. You ever see me dodge something.

    "But the hypocrisy stopped ... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    "But the hypocrisy stopped bothering them a long time ago.

    Just ask Nancy."


    Or Bruce, hyper, Woop, galoob...

    While I gave Chico an uptic... (Below threshold)
    epador:

    While I gave Chico an uptic for a well written response, it still failed to directly answer the posed question regarding GWB (though as noted by DaveD one could logically infer answers, I just fail to feel secure attributing logic to Chico's toolset).

    I agree with Bruce - liberals aren't consistent.

    But using a broad brush to paint folks you typically disagree with (for using broad brushes no less) sadly shows consistence. Now THAT's a paradox, huh?

    First, I'm not a leftist... (Below threshold)
    Evil Otto:

    First, I'm not a leftist


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Sorry that was uncalled for... I really should apologize for... that... that...

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Bruce, I promise I will not... (Below threshold)
    DaveD:

    Bruce, I promise I will not make that mistake again.

    BruceYou see here ... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Bruce

    You see here is the consistency part we are trying to stress.

    I am sure that Most conservatives have absolutely no problem with the raid that happened last weekend. Except maybe the part about blabbing about the intel and the changing versions but that has been discussed adnauseum. In regards to the raid happened, OBL is dead, we had to go to Pakistan to do it with no help from others. We got it, we applaud it. We got no problems with it.

    The problem we have is the left doing the super cheer (which if Bush had been in office and had done the same thing the right would have cheered as well) when IF Bush had been in office the results would have been pretty much along the lines of what I layed out above.

    If you feel I am wrong than address each point above I layed out with your scenario of how it would have played out.

    Bruce's is wearing cool aid... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    Bruce's is wearing cool aid colored glasses. He is committed to the lib hypocrite oath he took upon donning the glasses.


    It truly is a mental disease.

    retired, here's one innocen... (Below threshold)
    Chico:

    retired, here's one innocent guy who was tortured to death:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_torture_victim

    There are more, but I can't spend all my time answering your questions. Google "Guantanimo deaths" or "Abu Ghraib deaths" or "American torture deaths" and go from there.

    DaveD,

    Of course I would have been happy if it were Bush who had ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Bin Laden. But Bush didn't get it done, he had other priorities. That was one of my points, that Bush was incompetent.

    I actually believe Bush is a good man misled by more incompetent and evil subordinates like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Addington. But he was in charge, so the buck stops there.

    As for torture, it wasn't just that Bush authorized torture, he effectively tried to make it legal, along with other things like indefinite detention of US citizens without legal review, through his administration's legal rationalizations. He degraded the rule of law and the Bill of Rights in many ways, this was one.

    As for putting my ass or the life of family members on the line, you have no idea. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the United States. That is what I have, and am willing to, put my ass on the line for.

    Let's try that link again:<... (Below threshold)
    Chico:
    DaveD, on your last points,... (Below threshold)
    Chico:

    DaveD, on your last points, yes, I believe it's time to draw down on American military presence overseas. The USA is deteriorating economically and socially and we can't afford to try to dominate the world anymore. Focus on core interests.

    The Gulf War? A model of economy and use of force - a coalition including many Arab countries, Europe, overwhelming force brought to bear with limited objectives. The Weinberger/Powell doctrine in action.

    I am sure you are aware of the contrast and reported conflict between G HW Bush and his advisors and Bush II.

    ChicoThe Bush admi... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Chico

    The Bush administration was not complicit in those incidents. They are and were acts of individuals or small groups who went outside of orders. Same as the crap at Abu Graib.
    Bush never condoned any of that crap.


    Let's use your reaching argument that bush is guilty of torture due to those incidents. THen I will state that Obama is guilty of espianoge due to the Wikileaks incident. Hey Obama was President when it happened so therefore it is his fault.

    I am simply using your logic to apply the same standards to Obama that you are applying to Bush. Ray Charles could see it why cant you.

    "
    I can't spend all my time answering your questions"

    You cant spend the time to answer Yes or NO questions but you can spend the time writing discertations about how Bush invented torture techniques.

    "misled by more incompetent and evil subordinates like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Addington"

    DING DING DING Jim X Evil clean up on Aisle 34.

    " it wasn't just that Bush authorized torture (waterboarding - RM), he effectively tried to make it legal, along with other things like indefinite detention of US citizens without legal review, through his administration's legal rationalizations."

    Chico chico Chico

    I point again to the congressional authorization which YOU CITED TO AUTHORIZE OBAMA TO GO INTO PAKISTAN.

    And I quote

    "IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
    or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism."

    Once again, Your standard. Too bad you dont hold Bush to the same standard as you are holding Obama. Hence your standard is YOUR DOUBLE STANDARD.

    Oh boy where do I start?</p... (Below threshold)
    JDL:

    Oh boy where do I start?

    First of all I give Obama credit for making the call.

    Can anyone tell me the truth on what the Dems would be saying today if a Republican POTUS had gone into Pakistan, invaded the Sovereignty of that country without their permission and assassinated someone?

    If we had used the now closed "black" sites would we have known about the intel that has our country on alert for rail attacks from Al Qaeda?

    What if we did not find all the intel we did in the raid?

    If we still had enhanced interrogation would we have known OBL was still a vital player in AL Qaeda?

    What do we still not know because of the closed "black" sites?

    Has Obamas decision to close the "black" sites, investigate the interrogators, and neuter our CIA made us safer or weaker today?

    Why did Obamas admin come out so fast with all the "wrong" accounts of what happened? Anyone with any experience knows you wait till you gather "all" the information before coming out and reporting on the situation. They looked like the Three Stooges stumbling over themselves and made the country look very amateurish and weak in the days after the raid.

    How can we condemn Wikileaks if our own administration gives out the intel from the raid on OBL compound so freely?

    And if it was OK for Obama to go into Libya for humanitarian reasons how come Pres Bush was condemned for going in after Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people? It was ALL for political purposes that hurt our country.

    Now the Dems are pro-war and pro-assassination. The question is why? Could it ALL be for political reasons for the coming election? No, it couldn’t be that, could it?

    One quote made me sick to my stomach, Obama is a” reluctant warrior” unlike Pres Bush who was a “wild cowboy”. Pres Bush policies were for the protection of the country, Obamas policies are for his political ideology.

    So ChicoSimple yes... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    So Chico

    Simple yes or no question ( you have a habit of not answering them I see).

    Since you feel that Bush (even though he neither authorized nor condoned excessive force) is guilty of torture given the circumstances of the death listed in YOUR LINK and the incidents at Abu Graib and GITMO do you believe that Obama is guilty of espionage due to the WIkileaks incident?

    JDLI already laid ... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    JDL

    I already laid out the scenario of Bush going into Pakistan above. The only response the left gave me was from Bruce henry who has as of yet still hasnt answered my questions who no unlike Chico also refuses to answer my questions.

    BTW ChicoBy your v... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    BTW Chico

    By your vascilating you are proving the axiom

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man but one"

    The answer is 'I blame Bush... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    The answer is 'I blame Bush!' they cannot fathom any other reality. If there were a plausible explanation they would not hesitate to exploit it, however, in that scenario, the leftists would be using logic. And leftism and logic are constantly at odds.

    Right Bruce/.

    Now I have to run and work to survive in Barry's bustling bestest evah economy!!

    Have a Great day!!

    Since the death of Scoop Ja... (Below threshold)
    Greg:

    Since the death of Scoop Jackson, the GREAT Democrat Senator from my home state of Washington, Democrats have become exceedingly skilled in the art of Selective Logic and Stone Face Rationalization.

    Bruce, I must ask that you ... (Below threshold)
    Oyster:

    Bruce, I must ask that you refrain from using James H and Chico in the same reference. Theere is absolutely no comparison whatsoever in their responses. While I may disagree with James, not always, but sometimes, at least James is civil and measured. Chico liberally laces his rhetoric in hyperbole, ad hominem and vitriol.

    No comparison. Not ever.

    All of the lefties I know h... (Below threshold)
    RichardW:

    All of the lefties I know have been saying all along that we needed to treat AQ as the criminals they are and not drum up some phony war on terror as an excuse to kill darkies.

    And now that Obama has done what we wanted the right is laying claim that Obama did what "they" wanted all along? Bullshit. You clowns decided we needed to invade Iraq *instead* of prosecuting bin Laden and company.

    You losers chose the wrong direction. Don't think you can come crawling back now and try to get on America's good side.

    Likewise, there is curre... (Below threshold)
    Jay Guevara:

    Likewise, there is currently a "kill" order on Anwar al-Alwaki, the Al Qaeda leader who was born in the United States and still holds American citizenship.

    I don't want this a-hole killed overseas. Because he's an American citizen, I want this one captured, returned to the US, tried for treason - which God knows he's committed - and executed.

    We really need to knock the dust off of treason as a criminal charge, and this guy is the poster boy for doing it. Also, it might give some of our homegrown traitors second thoughts if we hang this joker. And yes, Jane Fonda, I'm looking at you. You're aiding and abetting the enemies of the US? Then all we need is two witnesses to the same overt act, and we're in business.

    In addition, I don't like the idea of a President targeting an American citizen - such as he is - for killing, although once again, God knows there are plenty who deserve it, but rule of law, and all that.

    A question for a point Chic... (Below threshold)
    Bunker:

    A question for a point Chico makes in post #10, where he said that "Now, Iraq had not attacked the USA"

    Wouldnt Iraq shooting at US air patrols enforcing the no fly zone left over from Operation Desert Storm qualify as attacking the USA?

    Could be wrong, but I am pretty sure an attack on the US military forces overseas counts as an attack on the United States.

    RicardWAre you abo... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    RicardW

    Are you about 180 Degress off?

    The folks who gave up the intel to capture OBL were caught in Iraq.

    Chico #36,Thanks f... (Below threshold)
    DaveD:

    Chico #36,

    Thanks for the reply.

    "Now, Iraq had not attac... (Below threshold)
    Jay Guevara:

    "Now, Iraq had not attacked the USA"

    Neither did Libya.

    Richardw"All of th... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Richardw

    "All of the lefties I know have been saying all along that we needed to treat AQ as the criminals they are and not drum up some phony war on terror as an excuse to kill darkies'

    So the lefties you know consider folks who are not caucssian darkies?

    Nice to see the lefties are even more racists than they try to portray the right to be.

    So richard what excuse does the left need to "kill darkies" as you put it? I thought asshats and idiots like you never seemed to bother with any kind of excuse other than "umm they are different than us"

    Of course, none of this is ... (Below threshold)
    LiberalNitemare:

    Of course, none of this is unusual. The hypocrisy of the left is no secret to anyone.

    What is unusual is when we have a situation that is such a shining example of liberal hypocrisy that even the leftards see it and are forced into Olympic caliber moral gymnastics to keep their own world view from exploding in their faces.

    Good stuff.

    "RicardW - Are you about... (Below threshold)
    RichardW:

    "RicardW - Are you about 180 Degress off? The folks who gave up the intel to capture OBL were caught in Iraq."

    That's more right wing bullshit.

    "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time."

    "[Hassan Guhl] was captured on January 23, 2004[11] by Kurdish police forces, possibly associated with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, at a checkpoint near Kalar, at the Iranian border after police sent a fax to American CIA officials to confirm his photograph."

    Neither capture was even remotely related to the U.S. invasion and presence in Iraq. Thanks for giving us another example of right wing post-mortem lies and bullshit, retired military -- too bad you retired your truth and honesty also. Why did you intentionally lie? Is it that none of the noobs around here bother to fact-check your bullshit?

    RichardwActually I... (Below threshold)
    retired military:

    Richardw

    Actually I thought I had heard it but to be honest I didnt check it. I fully admit it. For once I didnt check something. If I am wrong I admit it. I hereby do so.

    Bruce Henry and Chico Please take note. Someone asked me a question and I answered it truthfully honestly and fully. Chico you should try it sometime.


    That is something that you and your left wing "darkie killing" friends dont do there Richardw.


    It's only hypocrisy when yo... (Below threshold)
    Don L:

    It's only hypocrisy when you have principles to betray.

    "Now, Iraq had not attacked... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    "Now, Iraq had not attacked the USA"

    Neither did Libya.


    Either did Kosovo..

    I have a slightly different... (Below threshold)

    I have a slightly different take on the situation. First let me be very clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the decision send the team in with orders to dispatch OBL regardless of situation. Having said that, we should able to admit that kill orders are problematic if openly acknowledged. This was a secret military operation and some details should have remained secret. Admitting we will specifically kill individuals leads to questions of slippery slopes. No one (or only a very few irrelevant folks) has a problem with OBL being killed. However, how far down the terrorist pecking order is it okay to kill if they are not posing an immediate threat? We have prosecuted Marines for shooting decisions made in stressful situations. We prosecuted Col. (now Congressman) West for threatening a captured terrorist to gain info regarding potential attacks on his unit (or something similar to that). Too often we attempt to judge behaviors in a war based on our polite civilized sensibilities. Maybe we would be much better off not publicizing details and accepting that war is hell and bad things happen in war. By sending a message to our troops that every action will be scrutinized looking for an excuse to prosecute them later we are adding a massive amount of stress to folks who don't need deal with any more crap. No, I don't want lots of war crimes committed, but I accept that things happen in war zones that aren't as easy to judge as we tend to think back here in safety.

    Why is the GOP soft on terr... (Below threshold)
    TomToday:

    Why is the GOP soft on terror?

    Tom Today,Why are ... (Below threshold)
    Rodney Graves:

    Tom Today,

    Why are the Jackasses soft in the head?

    TomToday DumbTomorrow!... (Below threshold)
    Sep14:

    TomToday DumbTomorrow!

    .... if Obama's supporters ... (Below threshold)

    .... if Obama's supporters have really "seen the light" and are on board ... then fine (but) it just looks like they're more concerned with supporting Obama than maintaining any kind of consistency or principles -- (and) a touch of honesty would be nice ....

    Nice pipe dream but if we TEA party movement folk, AKA We, The (Sovereign American) People, are defined by anything simple, it is surely our simple commitment to honor, character and to moral integrity.

    And it is the Left's being antithetical to every one of those that sets the Left outside Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization's pale -- and is as sunshine to vampires.

    Here's the way I read the l... (Below threshold)
    John:

    Here's the way I read the leftist here (primarily Chico), some of them for the sake of appearence disagree with the Libia adventure. They don't use inflamatory language like, "Bush was mislead by evil people like Cheney and Rumsfeld." So when Obama does basically engages in the same sort of thing it's oh I disagree with that, no evil intent.

    If Bush had sent out a hit on a US civilian like Obama has (see that's an example of inflamatory so please don't throw it back in my face) they would be up in arms screaming for a frog march, but the best you'll get from them on Obama is "I disagree" That is the double standard.

    Bush cost thousands of Amer... (Below threshold)
    RichardW:

    Bush cost thousands of American lives, billions of tax payer dollars, and failed. Within 10 years Iraq will be the same mess it was before we invaded.

    Obama actually completed the mission, lost no American lives in the process, and spent a tiny fraction of the amount Bush wasted.

    "Why was that OK?"

    Because he got the job done and didn't waste lives and tons of money in the process.

    And the biggest thing is that he didn't lie like Bush did. It was a disgrace to this great nation to have Bush lie us into a phony war.

    DickW opines:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
    Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

    DickW opines:

    Bush cost thousands of American lives, billions of tax payer dollars, and failed.

    Bush won the War (Invasion of Iraq and ejection of the Ba'ath Government) in record time.

    Bush won the counter insurgency, also in record time.

    In doing so we paid the lowest blood price per man in combat in modern history.

    The war was won and the insurgency defeated before 0bma was sworn in. If 0bama manages to squander that victory after the fact, that will be on him.

    Afghanistan remains in the balance, though I believe it's trending in the right direction.

    0bama's "War of Choice" (aka Kinetic Military Action) is a rudderless cluster frack which shows every sign of ending poorly.

    0bama has spent more treasure in his 2.5 years in office (exclusive of the costs of those ongoing conflicts) than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have consumed in nearly a decade..

    It's not what the Dicks of the left don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so...




    Advertisements









    rightads.gif

    beltwaybloggers.gif

    insiderslogo.jpg

    mba_blue.gif

    Follow Wizbang

    Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

    Contact

    Send e-mail tips to us:

    [email protected]

    Fresh Links

    Credits

    Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

    Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

    Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

    In Memorium: HughS

    All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

    Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

    Hosting by ServInt

    Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

    Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

    Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

    Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

    Author Login



    Terms Of Service

    DCMA Compliance Notice

    Privacy Policy