|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
The
Neocon Liberal Alliance
Pure horseshit by Stephen M. Walt
In case you hadn’t noticed, over
the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya,
Already you can tell this joker wants to be a comedian.
I've never heard of this guy so I can't tell if he's a Bush apologist,
a disgruntled Obama-bot or
just a publicity-seeking handjob, but he doesn't make any sense.
...largely on the advice of liberal
interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides
Samantha Power and Michael McFaul. According to several news reports
I’ve read, he did this despite
objections from SecDef Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom
Donilon.
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and
liberal interventionists is that
the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see
as constraints on U.S. power),
and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American
dominance.
Pure horseshit.
He thinks Hillary has delusions of godhood and wants to take over the
world?
What evidence does he have that this mission is anything other that
what they said it is?
Dictator has his jets strafing innocents and the Arad
league
asked for help.
Sometimes, a duck is just a duck.
Both groups
extol the virtues of
democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power—and especially its
military power—can be a highly effective tool of statecraft.
He thinks Bush & Cheney invaded an oil rich country to extol the virtues of democracy?
Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody
but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America’s right and
responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world.
Now I'm guessing he's a Bush apologist and he's trying to say "both sides do it," but that argument
won't fly with sane people. He's saying, in effect, "Bush wore shoes and Obama wears shoes,
therefore both have identical foreign policy agendas" which is 100% pure horseshit.
He's saying if a cop shoots an armed suspect holding a hostage, it's "just like"
John Dillinger shooting a bank teller - but sane people know that's horseshit.
Plus, I haven't heard anything about Obama's fear that Libya will unleash WMDs on the world,
other than some say he has poison gas - but what dictator doesn't?
Both groups
consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however,
which is why each
has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital
interests are not engaged and that
end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.
Bush, Cheney & Runsfeld were always going to invade Iraq and they couldn't believe their
"good luck" when al Qaeda hit us on 9-11 - which enabled them to put their plan into action.
If you, Stephen M. Walt, have evidence that Obama and Hillary were always going to invade
Libya, then show your proof but if you're just some asshole with a wild guess, go fuck yourself.
Stephen M. Walt, thy name is whore.