So, do you sending American troops to Libya, should air war be insufficient to achieve Obama's putative goals? As with Greenwald, a yes or no answer will suffice...
"... knows how to assemble a complex international alliance ..."
Lordy. Bush pere et fils also knew how to do this, in the first and second Iraq wars (though Bush pere was admittedly better at it). Really, though, arguing about which legacy party runs the empire better is a mug's game, surely.
I'm very pleased that tonight Obama will finally be giving the excellent speech that will give all the "progressives" actual reasons to support the Libyan policy they have already decided to support, because, after all, he's Obama. Well done, all.
* * *
NOTE Since Bradley Manning is being tortured, and Obama took personal responsibility for the matter by declaring his treatment "appropriate," that makes all of Obama's remaining supporters pro-torture. That's why I had to put the word progressive in quotes. Too bad, but there it is.
Applying the war crimes frame: We are, in essence, responding to a crime by calling in the mafia (working on the assumption, I think shared by most here, that the American empire is best thought of as a criminal enterprise, both at home and abroad).
It is, of course, possible to advocate for neo-liberal humanitarian interventionism with the purest of motives, but let's be prepared to entertain the idea that our third on-going war in the region -- WaPo is already floating a trial balloon for "advisors" -- may not net out positive.
Typo: "Do you support sending."
Friedman just floated a trial balloon for "boots on the ground". I assume you would support that, given your views on the morality of the Libyan invasion and the empire generally.
So, do you sending American troops to Libya, should air war be insufficient to achieve Obama's putative goals? As with Greenwald, a yes or no answer will suffice...
Speaking of hagiography:
"... knows how to assemble a complex international alliance ..."
Lordy. Bush pere et fils also knew how to do this, in the first and second Iraq wars (though Bush pere was admittedly better at it). Really, though, arguing about which legacy party runs the empire better is a mug's game, surely.
What I'd be thankful for? A President who wasn't installing a CIA asset as the head of an oil-rich region. But that's just me.
Odd that a pro-torture President could exhibit empathy. But I apologize for interrupting the hagiography; do feel free to resume at any time!
As it turns out, the leader of Libya's "rag tag rebel Army" is, very likely, a CIA asset. Alrighty, then.
I'm very pleased that tonight Obama will finally be giving the excellent speech that will give all the "progressives" actual reasons to support the Libyan policy they have already decided to support, because, after all, he's Obama. Well done, all.
* * *
NOTE Since Bradley Manning is being tortured, and Obama took personal responsibility for the matter by declaring his treatment "appropriate," that makes all of Obama's remaining supporters pro-torture. That's why I had to put the word progressive in quotes. Too bad, but there it is.
Applying the war crimes frame: We are, in essence, responding to a crime by calling in the mafia (working on the assumption, I think shared by most here, that the American empire is best thought of as a criminal enterprise, both at home and abroad).
It is, of course, possible to advocate for neo-liberal humanitarian interventionism with the purest of motives, but let's be prepared to entertain the idea that our third on-going war in the region -- WaPo is already floating a trial balloon for "advisors" -- may not net out positive.