The shores of Tripoli
Now that the Gaddafi regime, which is older than Jennifer Aniston, appears to be collapsing, it’ll be fascinating to watch the post-collapse spin, given the way the conflict was framed by US politicians. Those more sympathetic toward the president tended to describe NATO’s involvement as an “intervention,” as if it featured family members surprising Libya in a room and tearfully voicing their concerns about its self-destructive behavior.
The Republicans, however, have insisted all along that it was a “war,” or, more specifically, “Obama’s war.” Modern-day Republicans are wondrously fond of war, but they made an exception for “Obama’s war.” Even the most hawkish donned love beads and headbands and created colorful “Make Love, Not War” posters to carry as they converged on the Capitol in a massive anti-war demonstration.
Just kidding about the hippie thing! But Republican thought leaders objected to “Obama’s war” just the same. They were not shy about voicing their concerns as the US moved to intervene, an act they consider treasonous when the White House is occupied by a Republican.
Limbaugh predictably (and incoherently) made it about race:
“We have a regime which sees any rebel as an oppressed minority. You could have a minority of the worst scum on earth. You’ve got people who are sympathetic to them because they’re a minority and they think minorities are eating excrement sandwiches all day… there are people who live in this regime– leftists who have that position.”
Palin wasn’t sure what Obama’s strategy was, but by golly, she wasn’t happy about it:
“We’re not hearing from our president what is the end-game here,” Palin charged. “And with Gaddhafi still in power, if we’re not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is not an acceptable end-state.”
Bachmann cited outlandish crap gleaned from the Internet:
Bachmann claimed a “report out of Libya” says potentially 10,000 to 30,000 people could have been killed last night from a NATO airstrike… “President Obama’s policy of leading from behind is an outrage and people should be outraged at the foolishness of the President’s decision” and asking “what in the world are we doing in Libya if we don’t know what our military goal is?”
Romney was in full projection mode:
“He calls for the removal of Moammar Gadhafi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and United Nations,” Romney said. “He’s tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.”
Gingrich thought closing Gaddafi’s Tiffany’s account might have achieved the same objective:
“I would not have intervened,” former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gaddafi.”
Now that it appears “Obama’s war” will achieve the removal of Gaddafi, Republicans are casting about for a way to make that out to be A Very Bad Thing. The consensus seems to be that since it will only result in Muslims taking over all that oil, it wasn’t an objective worth achieving. Points to Senator McCain and his loyal pet Lindsey Graham for a “mavericky” conclusion:
“Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Kadafi,” the senators said in a statement released late Sunday night. “But we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”
No one will ever be able to accuse Republicans of failing to employ the full weight of their hypocrisy.
Posted by Betty Cracker on 08/22/11 at 02:23 PM • Permalink
Categories: News • Politics • Election '08 • St. McSame • Barack Obama • BushCo • Bedwetters • Nutters • Sarah Palin • Teabaggery •
Share this post: 
