please don't give the credit for not bombing Syria to the US Congress. Those warmongers never met a war they didn't approve of. Doesn't anyone remember Putin's pivotal role in thwarting what would have been yet another disastrous American invasion of a Mulsim country? Russian proposals to secure the handover of Syria's chemical weapons before key talks in Geneva are what convinced Obama not to bomb. The US Congress simply agreed.
How you twist words! Opposing yet another illegal military intervention by the US hardly means "supporting Qaddafi." Opposing another war without stated objective or end-game does not mean "opposing practical steps to keep Qaddafi from slaughtering the protest movement." You have tried to smear anyone who is not a cheerleader for this war, but your "liberal" interventionism is bankrupt. How many Libyans did NATO slaughter? How many more will be slaughtered during the next phase of your "humanitarian" war? You have lost all credibility with progressives.
And Bush disbanded the special CIA task force that was looking for bin Laden. It's clear that Bush had moved on and saw bin Laden for what he was--a has been. Obama resurrected bin Laden to also resurrect his poll numbers.
Hitler was the leader of a nation with whom the US was engaged in a legal war--i.e., declared by Congress. Bin Laden was a criminal, not affiliated with any nation or any declared war. His crimes were yet to be determined in a court of law. The whole point is not whether bin Laden deserved to die, but whether a president of the US should have the sole power of judge, jury and executioner. Obama is already talking about this being a precedent--that means even more executive power. Very dangerous.
For years pundits have argued that you can't have a war on "terror" because terror is a tactic, not a country. Now, this execution is being justified because it's supposedly taking place during a "war." That's no more sound than defending Guantanamo as a holding place for war prisoners. Since bin Laden was never tried and convicted, it remains to be seen--and there is nothing but circumstantial evidence, if that--that he was engaged in directing terrorist operations against the US. What he claims and what he did may be two different things, especially as we know the loose organizational structure of al'Qaeda. That's exactly why capture and trial was necessary. However, what bin Laden would have said during a trial and who he would have accused of torture, killing, etc., would be too much for this government to allow to become public. Hence, this extra-judicial execution. Juan Cole is incorrect about this being a legal act--and the coming weeks will see much more discussion. What Mr. Cole and other cheerleaders aren't thinking about is the precedent this sets--there is no stopping Obama or any other president from having their hit list and sending assassination teams throughout the world.
To say that the US has a moral obligation to lend support to the effort of its allies is clever, but won't win you any arguments. The answer is: not when its allies have undertaken an immoral or illegal invasion of a sovereign country without being under threat. My mother used to say: If everyone jumped off a bridge would you follow? Well, the Europeans wanted to jump off the bridge (they get more oil from Libya then we do), but that doesn't mean the US should follow. We weren't under attack. The Europeans weren't under attack. No threat--no basis for war. Selectively intervening in the civil wars of sovereign countries is a dangerous precedent, especially when we see how US presidents are using every legal trick in the book to circumvent Congress and accrue more powers to their office. If there were a true basis for war, Congress should have called it.
"everyone who matters"? Well, except the US Congress, which wasn't consulted. Which of your two simplistic camps do they fall into? And you have no clue who the rebels even are, so why do you assume this is a democratization movement? Finally, if "We have been fucking up there for the past decade" as you say, it is because of exactly the actions we are now using in Libya: bombs instead of diplomacy. Qaddafi was the friend of American and European leaders for decades, until he decided to cut western oil companies out of his game. Then, behold! We found our humanitarian hearts and invaded Libya. And guys like you drank the kool-aid.
Will you still be cheering after we're in Libya for 5 or 10 years, as seems to be our pattern? The fact is, Obama started a war without congressional approval, so beyond the "right or wrong" of being in Libya is the important fact that Obama did not follow Constitutional procedure. And yes, this is important if we want to maintain the veneer of a democracy. If this war is so damned important and necessary, then why not subject it to a congressional debate and do it legally? No Leftist should support an illegal war. Period!
One of the worst TV shows demonizing Muslims is NCIS. This show never met a Muslim it didn't deem a terrorist, and it glorifies the Mossad--the intelligence agency of the fascist state of Israel. It's popular shows like NCIS that infuse racist attitudes in the minds of ignorant Americans.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
please don't give the credit for not bombing Syria to the US Congress. Those warmongers never met a war they didn't approve of. Doesn't anyone remember Putin's pivotal role in thwarting what would have been yet another disastrous American invasion of a Mulsim country? Russian proposals to secure the handover of Syria's chemical weapons before key talks in Geneva are what convinced Obama not to bomb. The US Congress simply agreed.
How you twist words! Opposing yet another illegal military intervention by the US hardly means "supporting Qaddafi." Opposing another war without stated objective or end-game does not mean "opposing practical steps to keep Qaddafi from slaughtering the protest movement." You have tried to smear anyone who is not a cheerleader for this war, but your "liberal" interventionism is bankrupt. How many Libyans did NATO slaughter? How many more will be slaughtered during the next phase of your "humanitarian" war? You have lost all credibility with progressives.
And Bush disbanded the special CIA task force that was looking for bin Laden. It's clear that Bush had moved on and saw bin Laden for what he was--a has been. Obama resurrected bin Laden to also resurrect his poll numbers.
Here's the video--now please stop denying the truth, Mr. Truth.
link to youtube.com
Hitler was the leader of a nation with whom the US was engaged in a legal war--i.e., declared by Congress. Bin Laden was a criminal, not affiliated with any nation or any declared war. His crimes were yet to be determined in a court of law. The whole point is not whether bin Laden deserved to die, but whether a president of the US should have the sole power of judge, jury and executioner. Obama is already talking about this being a precedent--that means even more executive power. Very dangerous.
For years pundits have argued that you can't have a war on "terror" because terror is a tactic, not a country. Now, this execution is being justified because it's supposedly taking place during a "war." That's no more sound than defending Guantanamo as a holding place for war prisoners. Since bin Laden was never tried and convicted, it remains to be seen--and there is nothing but circumstantial evidence, if that--that he was engaged in directing terrorist operations against the US. What he claims and what he did may be two different things, especially as we know the loose organizational structure of al'Qaeda. That's exactly why capture and trial was necessary. However, what bin Laden would have said during a trial and who he would have accused of torture, killing, etc., would be too much for this government to allow to become public. Hence, this extra-judicial execution. Juan Cole is incorrect about this being a legal act--and the coming weeks will see much more discussion. What Mr. Cole and other cheerleaders aren't thinking about is the precedent this sets--there is no stopping Obama or any other president from having their hit list and sending assassination teams throughout the world.
So what's the difference between Quaddafi's sons and Israeli soldiers/prison guards? The same sadistic, arrogant, brutality in both.
To say that the US has a moral obligation to lend support to the effort of its allies is clever, but won't win you any arguments. The answer is: not when its allies have undertaken an immoral or illegal invasion of a sovereign country without being under threat. My mother used to say: If everyone jumped off a bridge would you follow? Well, the Europeans wanted to jump off the bridge (they get more oil from Libya then we do), but that doesn't mean the US should follow. We weren't under attack. The Europeans weren't under attack. No threat--no basis for war. Selectively intervening in the civil wars of sovereign countries is a dangerous precedent, especially when we see how US presidents are using every legal trick in the book to circumvent Congress and accrue more powers to their office. If there were a true basis for war, Congress should have called it.
"everyone who matters"? Well, except the US Congress, which wasn't consulted. Which of your two simplistic camps do they fall into? And you have no clue who the rebels even are, so why do you assume this is a democratization movement? Finally, if "We have been fucking up there for the past decade" as you say, it is because of exactly the actions we are now using in Libya: bombs instead of diplomacy. Qaddafi was the friend of American and European leaders for decades, until he decided to cut western oil companies out of his game. Then, behold! We found our humanitarian hearts and invaded Libya. And guys like you drank the kool-aid.
Will you still be cheering after we're in Libya for 5 or 10 years, as seems to be our pattern? The fact is, Obama started a war without congressional approval, so beyond the "right or wrong" of being in Libya is the important fact that Obama did not follow Constitutional procedure. And yes, this is important if we want to maintain the veneer of a democracy. If this war is so damned important and necessary, then why not subject it to a congressional debate and do it legally? No Leftist should support an illegal war. Period!
One of the worst TV shows demonizing Muslims is NCIS. This show never met a Muslim it didn't deem a terrorist, and it glorifies the Mossad--the intelligence agency of the fascist state of Israel. It's popular shows like NCIS that infuse racist attitudes in the minds of ignorant Americans.