I'll admit it. I'm going to be a hypocrite and give the President a free pass on Libya

There, I said it out in the open. I have a double standard about this animated military exercise (or whatever the term for it is).

I listened to Obasma's speech tonite. It was a fine speech., I guess.

I'm kind of shrugging my shoulders and saying "Okay. Oh Well...Whatever." My attitude is kind of neutral, and "Fine, just please don't drag it out and spend too much of the money we don't have on this, or send a lot of troops in there."

I'm being hypocritical. The current action in Libya is on a much smaller scale (so far) and the situation is different. But there are some parallels to Iraq and I must admit that if Bush had done this, I'd be pissed.

I remember when Bush announced his plans to first convince Sadaam to step down and if he didn't we'd go in and force him out. In the months leading up to that I stood out in the cold at protests, wrote and called my representatives in Congress, bored my friends with my spouting off about it and generally got myself into a lather against it. (All to no avail, of course.)

But this time, I'm not paying much attention to the debates about Libya. I check in on the news to see if anything dramatic has happened. But not following who's for it and against it in DC and around the country.

Maybe it's just issue overload. I can't care about it, even though I should. Too much else has been happening.

I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House,m and I have enough beefs with President Obama. So I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Hope he succeeds at whatever it is they're trying to accomplish there. Hoping it doesn't do any political damage.

So fine. I support President Obama's actions in Libya. Sure, why not?

Just because we fucked up in Iraq does not mean that there are not psychotic dictators who slaughter their own people. If Iraq's people had revolted against Saddam and Bush had used that as a justification to use a UN coalition to enforce a no-fly zone and protect the rebels WITHOUT troops on the ground, I will admit I probably would not have had a problem with it.

But that's not what happened. Instead we were fed a line of crap about mythical WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda that didn't exist, and the Senate and House were cowed into supporting the rush to war for fear of being called "anti-American".

These actions are not inherently bad just because they were so badly tainted during the Bush years. There are just causes for intervention, and Libya was one of them.

Yes. Yes I would have--more so if it had not been during the venture in Afghanistan.

But we both know that's not how Junior did things--I am projecting a certain level of competency onto his administration that never, ever existed for a single second in eight years.

...then I don't think I would have held it against Bush. Had he made a truthful case for going to Iraq for whatever reason and had it been a truthful reason that the American public and Congress all generally agreed with it, then it would have been a mere policy disagreement rather than something I considered an impeachable offense and probably criminal.

It's hard to answer that because from the beginning I totally mistrusted Bush, and did not believe anything he did was for the stated purpose.

But at the same time, I realized Sadaam was an evil bastard and did horrible things to his people...But we can't be invading every country with horrible leaders.

I do trust Obama that basically there are no hidden agendas in what he is doing in Libya. That makes it easier to give him a pass.

I just think he is too optimistic in thinking we can get out of this.

"I do trust Obama that basically there are no hidden agendas in what he is doing in Libya."

hey that's your perogative. Of course it's basically contradicted by literally the entire history of American involvement in the middle east/north africa

Not to mention the neocolonialism of the Brits and France


ok but maybe this time it's miraculously different.

And I do see the good side---there are more pro-convincing support for Obama's position and less for the contrary. However, I am against the action and I'm going to stay there. His speech is not convincing enough for me.

such that no similar situations arise in the numerous other "problem" countries, because the rulers involved might see that there is a line they may not cross. And, importantly, its not just an "American" line, but one set by the EU and the Arab League as well.

regime change is more costly, and involves greater risks has merit given he cited Iraq as an example.

Intervening to stop genocide via a multilateral 14 nation coalition sanctioned by a UN resolution sure as hell doesn't fit that category.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm against military intervention kind of across the board, but there are differences.

I'm not naive to believe this is solely a humanitarian action. I'm of the belief that France and England were pushing this and we need to support them as they've supported us in the past. That's reality and that's politics and we have to keep our alliances strong. But I'm personally supporting this action since the people themselves asked for help from the West, and that couldn't have been easy for them to do. Although I wish we could help ALL the peoples of the world who need help, that's not realistic and that's not going to happen, so I'm glad at least SOME deserving it are receiving it. Like Mother Teresa said, if you can't fee a hundred mouths, feed one. :shrug:

The money, as I understand it, is from the already-approved defense budget so we're not pulling it from elsewhere and if it hadn't been used for this it wouldn't have been funneled into something NON-military, and we aren't borrowing from China!

And I think there is no way Obama would allow boots on the ground after getting stuck with Iraq and Afghanistan, plus, it's not as though we even HAVE enough personnel to send into yet another country!

I understand peoples' opposition to this, and I would usually be right there with them, but I think this is a different situation.

You're not a hypocrite. You still believe in and support all the "right things". This is one of them. :pals:

See my reply to the OP below.

Everybody has prejudices and various fixations, and, when faced with an extremely complex situation, it's nice to hear someone who is willing to live with the reality of things being in flux, difficult and muddy.

The habitual chest-thumping and self-righteous, scorched-earth bullying and mega-certainty is deeply depressing at times like this on this board and in open society. Truly, the cocksure inability of many to address simple, repeatedly demonstrated facts if they conflict in the slightest with their preconceptions just exacerbates the inherent loneliness most inquisitive people feel at times of great upheaval like these. Knowledge brings one the humbling realization of one's own ignorance, and one of the hallmarks of intelligence is awareness of one's own stupidity.

It's okay to not have all the answers or fully be for or against things when they are quite complex and rather unknown, and to admit and morally embrace one's own fallibility and inconsistency--especially in the case of ethics--is the sign of an honorable human being.

The important thing is that the best possible outcome prevails for the most people, and amid factionalism and the mis- and dis-information (not to mention the sheer LACK of it) it's very hard to tell what path leads there.

Dammit.

If Khadaffi had started slaughtering people in Benghazi I would have been sickened and furious.

I suppose it was as good an outcome as I could expect

Didn't the president say the Gadhafi 'frozen assets' will be given back to the Libyan people once the madman will decide to jump his sinking ship?

I, for one, am confident the Libyan gov. will agree to 'pay back' for the 'costs' of the intervention with those 'stolen assets by gawd-awful (to keep for himself and his court of followers)'.

Why isn't it clear enough to most here??? :shrug:

how did that end up?

money from helping people at home, but that's not the case. This money already was given to Defense, we never would have gotten our hands on it anyway. And if it can be used to help some oppressed people and keep our alliances strong (and potentially garner new ones) then I'm glad they decided to take this action.

but Libya is NOT Iraq and, more importantly, Obama is NOT Bush.

n/t

I'm confident Obama will get us out of this mess.

...Neither party is willing to do much about that because politicians are addicted to corporate money - so we have to do what we have to do."

("Oh, and history shows that U.S. presidents do themselves a favor wearing that Commander in Chief Hat right before an election.")

1) Do you know how much oil the US gets from Libya?

2) Given the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama would still be wearing the CIC hat right before an election, regardless of Libya.

There's precious little oil in the Gulf of Mexico - and that is sold on the world market (there is no U.S. market). Offshore drilling is about extra profits for the big companies and extra donations to politicians, not extra oil for Americans.

This is Obama's first war on his own - no sharing.

I'm a constant critic of the President. However, I do try to praise him when he adheres to Dem policies.

In this case, I have real mixed feelings.

I see a really unique opportunity to hitch his wagon to the star that shooting across the Middle East. Democracy (or what passes for democracy) is breaking out all over. He would do well to be involved as much as possible in the process. It could actually become part of his legacy.

I do not like that we so freely enter into these things putting American soldiers in harms way.

I just have mixed feelings.

-PLA

He could do a lot of good if he'd give a high-profile talk about what is happening in the middle east in the same 3D "adult" depth and honesty that characterized his speech on racism.

Ie. support the democracy movements, while acknowledging the difficult issues involved in an honest way that goes outside the usual box.

"Yeah, I am a partisan hack who has double standards for democrats and republicans and I admittedly have no idea what I am talking about, but I support Obama's action in Libya anyways."


Sheesh, at least your honest, I think there are a lot of people on this site who are a lot like you but aren't willing to be that blunt about it.