As you know, Moammar Qaddafi is dead, and Libya is now in the hands of the rebels who rose up against him, and who were aided by NATO in their struggle. No Americans were lost, and not that much money was spent. On its face, that would seem to be an enormous vindication of the policy that President Obama pursued in Libya. I mean, basically, it worked.
And yet, not a single Republican seems willing to give credit where credit is so clearly due. It’s really a bit embarrassing, as Jon Stewart so aptly points out. “Are you that small,” he asks. Sadly, the answer does seem to be “yes.”
Please share widely!
centralmassdad says
I was not thrilled with the policy–particularly the seemingly extra-legal manner in which it was carried out.
But it seems indeed to have been a huge success.
Eventually, someone in Libya, perhaps affiliated with a new government, or perhaps not, will say something that sounds a little jihadish, and then the Republicans can accuse Obama of “losing” Libya to terrorists, and will do this with a straight face. I hope Obama has the Lockerbie parents lined up to respond to that.
johnk says
Brown supports air strikes on Libya
Brown circumspect on Libya escalation
Brown urges caution on no-fly zone for Libya
Doing estate planning as a JAG two weeks a year doesn’t qualify you as a foreign policy expert. But this is all he could muster after Obama’s policies worked:
Nothing else to add Scott? What a clown.
Mark L. Bail says
that he’s so dumb it takes him a while to figure out what he’s supposed to think. He’s an empty vessel waiting to be filled up by the GOP.
johnd says
childish and a waste of time?
johnk says
sorry, can’t read every post.
But can we all agree that if someone posts a factual argument with supporting links and the best counter is “you said scotto, that’s mean”, you are basically saying there is no counter.
johnd says
we should refrain from cute names. It detracts from your colorful attacks. That’s all!
Your post title above was …
johnk says
n/t
Mark L. Bail says
I was giving an explanation for how he (re)acts to situations. Name calling is sometimes fun, but in terms of truth, it’s a waste of time.
Brown knows next to nothing and lacks a clear ideological compass. He doesn’t have anything to guide him in what he says or decides. Think of the bill he co-sponsored and then filibustered. He’s not coherent. When he speaks, it’s usually Reaganish, 1980sish, platitudes. If he does what you want him to do, support him, Call him by his name by all means, but he’s still an empty vessel.
tblade says
I imagine it’s only a matter of time before right wing talkers find a way to give all the credit for the good Colonel’s overthrow to the President Reagan, who single-handedly demolished the Iron Curtin and ripped down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands!
jconway says
“Cut and Run” Reagan (wisely) got out of Lebanon, didn’t finish the job with Qadaffi, and never attacked the Syrians who were actually responsible for the Berlin disco bombing. Also from Ike to Nixon to Ford to Reagan and Bush I, the Republican party was full of realists on all issues, and particularly on Israel and did not toe a hawkish line. It was Reagan who pulled Arafat out of Lebanon, Reagan who put sanctions on Begins government for its brutality against civilians in Lebanon, and Baker who under Reagan and Bush I was a prime actor in getting Oslo to move forward. Also most of his national security team opposed the Iraq War (Scowcroft, Baker, and Eagleburger to name a few). Not to mention his deficit was bigger, he raised taxes three times, amnest for illegal immigrants, and support for universal healthcare for children-in many respects Reagan even as a conservative was more liberal than any conservative and some liberals are today.
kbusch says
There is an extraordinary irony in listening to Republicans tut-tut about Qaddafi being overthrown without a viable successor.
Their Administration didn’t take us into Iraq prepared for a post Saddam Husein period and they let Afghanistan descend into an untenable mess of corruption so that the defeat of the Taliban looks to be only temporary.
johnd says
I applaud the departure of Qaddafi and I give President Obama for assisting the rebels in taking back their country.
Great job Mr President!
johnd says
nt
jconway says
And I also await the various Kucinich peacenik like leftists who were aghast and apalled at this conflict when it started and convinced it would be another Iraq. Their silence is deafening.
An Air Force Colonel once lectured my class on how we ‘won’ the Afghan War (this was circa 2006) and ‘lost’ the Iraq war and a key difference was we came in with a light ground footprint, utilized existing native resistance forces to do the heavy ground lifting, and provided them with air support. This was an excellent strategy in Libya, worked quite well in Afghanistan until we backed Karzai and tried to impose a democracy on its people (we should have just let the Northern Alliance warlords run the place they’d have been far less anti-woman and far more anti-Al Qaeda) and one can argue our current Afghan national army and drone strategy is working a lot better than ground forces (the Biden plan is better than the Petraeus plan).