Hillary Clinton, to Libya War Critics: "Whose side are you on?"


You know, maybe we should stop electing this guy

Are you with us, or with the dictator and the terrorism he supports? That's the White House formulation that infuriated liberals and Democrats from 2001-2008, and it's the formulation being used right now by the administration that liberals and Democrats elected to punish the previous gang. Here's Secretary State Hillary Clinton at a press conference in Jamaica:

QUESTION: […] We've entered a situation in Libya that looks increasingly quagmire-like. And it's starting to create a political headache for the Administration with Republican leaders arguing that the actions were inappropriate in the sense that they circumvented congressional approval for them. What is the – your vision for the endgame, a medium-term plan for U.S. involvement in Libya? And what do you make of House Speaker Boehner's remarks?

SECRETARY CLINTON: […] I have to take issue with your underlying premise. I think that there is very clear progress being made in the organization and the operational ability of the opposition, the Transitional National Council, the military efforts on the ground. I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that Qadhafi and the people around him have their backs against the wall. The kind of support that we saw forthcoming for the Libyan opposition at the recent Libyan Contact Group meeting in Abu Dhabi was very heartening. Money is flowing, other support is available.

So I know we live in a hyper-information-centric world right now, and March seems like it's a decade ago, but by my calendar, it's only months. And in those months, we have seen an international coalition come together unprecedented between not only NATO, but Arab nations, the Arab League, and the United Nations. This is something that I don't think anyone could have predicted, but it is a very strong signal as to what the world expects to have happen, and I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I'm sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

Bold type added.

Power is such a profoundly ugly thing. I sincerely hope every anti-war demonstrator-turned Obama voter gets Clinton's quote tattooed on their forehead.

Link via Hot Air's AllahPundit, who has related thoughts.

NEXT: Friday Funnies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [i]But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?[/i]

    how about neither?

    1. html tags – how do they work? /idjit

        1. < brackets > meta-fail < / brackets >
          remove spaces.

          1. &lt;brackets>a better way&lt;/brackets>

            in action:
            <brackets>a better way</brackets>

            Side note: I’d blame BBcode

    2. I have significant doubts that the TNC and the aspirations of the Libyan people are one.

      1. There is no such thing as the “aspirations of the Libyan people”.

  2. The difference here is that Madame Clinton was questioning the patriotism of pretty much all of Congress, not just the opposition party. Of course, that might have something to do with the bipartisan nature of the Libya blowback.

    1. The famous GWB Administration “you’re either with us or against us” was directed to Musharraf (and, by extension, Pakistan). See for example Musharraf’s memoir reviewed here.

      He knew his audience ? “In the Line of Fire” is a book written for American readers, a tale of how the Bush administration recruited him into the new war after 9/11. “You are either with us or against us,” a fellow soldier, Secretary of State Colin Powell, told him. But the book’s best break ? the author’s luck ? was provided by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. The choice was clear, Armitage told the director general of Pakistan’s intelligence ? America or the terrorists. And if Pakistan chose the terrorists, it should be “prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.”

      I believe that subsequent events have borne out the wisdom of questioning Pakistan’s position.

      The famous “people should watch what they say” was also directed at a Republican House Member who had spoken of giving extra security at airports to “anyone with a towel on his head,” so again, not directed at one party.

    2. I like reading Clinton’s statement, but with Bush’s voice in my head. It’s seamless.

      1. Only a Sith thinks in absolutes! Oh wait, a Democrat said it? Nevermind.

  3. These aren’t the Morning Links! What is this madness?!

    1. Shrillary is an honorary Golden Girl.

      1. “shillary” works too 😉

  4. isn’t this how Bush lost joe?

    1. lost joe


  5. I demand morning links!!!

    1. All part of my master plan. The weaklings will spew their premature links, then I will have the real Morning Links all to myself. Bwaa-ha-ha!

    2. Seconded, goddammit!!!

    3. First they came for our Weekend Threads. Then they came for our Morning Links.

      You see where this is going…

      1. Oh fine, now you’re on our side!

  6. Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’.…..-must-rise

    1. Feed me, Seymour. Feed me!

  7. Why do you think business is allowed to exist, anyway?

    1. For the pleasure of the State.

  8. “Clear progress is being made” — we deposed the Iraqi government in, like, 3 days. How long did it take to catch Saddam? A year? 18 months? And we’re at 2 or so months now? That’s an objective standard for quagmire, right?

    1. How long did it take to catch Saddam? A year? 18 months?

      9 months.

      1. The critical bit is that we were able to depose him in under two months. Now, I’ll grant that that task is much easier accomplished with boots on the ground (which I’d prefer to not see in Libya obviously), and it may very well be preferable to not rid the country of Ghaddafi immediately and wait until the transitional govt is ready to assume power over the whole country (and has legitimacy to govern so as to avoid insurgency), but one has to wonder if this administration really has any good plans in waging this or if they’re just kinda winging it.

      2. I knew my estimates seemed high, but I didn’t want to lowball. Thanks.

    2. How long did it take to catch Saddam?

      We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.


    Lindthy Graham promised that if Qaddaffi stays in power NATO will be destroyed so, come to think of it, I am sort of “on his side” in a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sorta way.

  10. I’m against everybody involved. Qaddafi, the rebels, the State Department, NATO, Obama, Hilary, Congress. Did I miss anybody?

    1. The UN declared the war.

      1. I’m against that worthless collection of dictator apologists, too.

        1. Don’t forget their innovative child prostitution rings.

    2. It’s great that we’ve shown dictators that if they reform somewhat (at least to the extent of not killing US citizens), we still might betray them anyway at any time. That’s an awesome message to put out there. I’m sure it’s going to make US citizens much safer.

      1. Moreover, I can easily see the TNC remaining democratic for one or two election cycles, then democratically electing some Hamas-type terrorists to lead them… Just like in Palestine and dare I say it: similar to Afghanistan.

  11. Google, the monster

    Afterwards, at lunch, Ms. G says seven of the roughly 20 people there were politely escorted out. All seven were overweight women; everyone who stayed was thin.

    1. “That man ate all our shrimp! And two plastic lobsters! “

      1. “Do these sound like the actions of man who has truly had ‘All he could eat?'”

        1. Possibly Mr. Hutz’ finest moment as a litigator.

          1. ‘Tis no man… ’tis a remorseless eating machine! Yarr.

            1. Hey! That’s hate speech!

              1. I’m not fat… I’m festively plump.

            2. Captain McAllister, isn’t it true that you’re NOT a real captain?

      2. she got the impression they wanted to see “that you’re active in your life, that you do stuff outside of work, that you’re well-rounded.”


    2. Damn you, Warty! That one was mine!

    3. Google is wisely avoiding the need to retrofit their workspaces.

    4. A very good friend of mine works there and says that while it’s a very nice job to have (i.e. the perks), it’s not necessarily a nice place to work. He says that most of his corworkers (but not all) are smug smarter-than-thou assholes (by virtue of getting the job in the first place) and that there are all kinds of Ivy League-type backstabbing and territorial battles that are tacitly encouraged by management as hallmarks of being “competitive.” So, this story might be entirely made up or misinterpreted, but it seems kind of consistent to me.

      1. I hear boot licking the Chinese is also a sign of “competitiveness”.

        I wonder if they consider kicking some Ivy League douche’s ass to be a hallmark of being competitive.

        1. I hear boot licking the Chinese is also a sign of “competitiveness”.

          Somebody should check The Truth’s IP and see if it comes from the DoS.

    5. Solution: Put down the fork.

      1. Agreed. It doesn’t sound like a nice thing to do, but it’s not necessarily anyone else’s business except for the parties involved. Thanks for making out that crucial point because I’m sure the Sexebel reaction is , “HOW AWFUL! CALL THE GOVERNMENT!!!”

  12. Seems like Hillary and McCain are in bed together on this one. I’m sure Bill wouldn’t mind that wife swap at all.

    1. I’m pretty sure Bill would swap her for a fleshlight and some magazines for the evening if you asked nice.

      1. A Morton’s fork between having your dick bitten off or frozen off.

      2. I believe that happened long ago.

      3. By fleshlight, you mean intern, right?

        1. Fleshlights know how to keep their fucking mouth shut around reporters.

    2. That has to be the most one sided swap since the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth.

    3. ? Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran Libya. ?

      1. Funny you should say that.

        I would not be at all surprised, had Nov 4, 2008 gone the other way, if President McCain were bombing Libya and the partisan douchebaggery were reversed 180 degrees.

  13. For some reason, many people simultaneously do these two things:

    1) Criticize the US for telling Pakistan “you’re either with us or against us”

    2) Criticize the US for failing to force Pakistan to be either with us or against us, and tolerating their half-assed cooperation.

    1. We like to have it both ways.

  14. Excellent post, Mr Welch. Perfect punchline.

  15. Shit, I have to either side with the lawless, terrorist-arming, warmongering tyrant that loots his people to sate the greed of his family and cronies, or Gaddafi. What a dilemma.

    1. I love all My creations.

      1. OK. Explain to me what there is to love about dacshunds, chihuahuas, pekingese or other “punt dogs”.

  16. OT
    Just another vicious dog attack on our brave men in black.


    1. Yay!

    2. In Gainesville they shoot people whose behavior “wasn’t right”.

      1. That’s not Gainesville, it’s a town about 30-40 minutes away in the same county. Not that the Gainesville or University police should be trusted with firearms.

        1. Everything south of Jefferson County, North of Pinellas, and East of Orlando is Gainesville to me.

          1. Keystone Heights is like Waldo or Starke far away. Another planet.

          2. East of Orlando?

            1. Sorry. West. Brainfart.

              1. “West Brainfart”.

                Is that the part of DC that runs along the North side of the Mall from Capitol Hill to the Lincoln Memorial?

  17. I’m on the Constitution’s side, Mrs. Vader.

    1. I’d hit it. From behind, of course.

    2. Come now, such archaic notions of limited government, does it really matter anymore?

      1. Wow, I was so thrilled to see, at least the first comments I scanned, the commenters take the idiot to task for his ahistorical ignorance.

    3. Oh, I’m afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive.

      1. What’s morally wrong about killing or subduing with force someone who is threatening to kill thousands right now and who has killed millions, if not billions, in recent history? Because he’s not carrying a blaster or a light saber at this particular instance?

        1. Everybody kills Hitler on their first trip.

          1. Whether he’s armed or unarmed?

            1. READ BULLETIN 1147, PEOPLE!

          2. Everybody kills Hitler on their first trip.

            Except Warty.

            Warty provides him with nukes and the full details of Operation Overlord.

            1. :::sigh:::

              –fires up time machine–

        2. Killing him wouldn’t have prevented the deaths he was threatening. Seeing as how he was surrounded by imperial minions, subduing wasn’t really an option either.

          1. I dunno, didn’t Daddy killing him help? I got the impression that it was his will, in part, that was holding everything together. Look what happened when he died–men in armor, armed with blasters, were defeated by tribbles. I mean, come on, something had to be going on there.

            1. Well, there was some artistic license taken there. In the real world, battles between teddy bears and supernatural emperors tend to go a bit differently.

              1. It’s best to squint your eyes and pretend that they are Wookies with modern weapons. In fact, someone should edit the movie to make it that way.

                1. Lucas is saving that edit for the Blu-Ray Ultra edition. Only $239 for something you already own 4 times!

                  1. All I want is the original films in their original, unedited editions.

              2. Not when Mark Hamill appears as the good fairy.

                1. Hey, I liked the whole redemption story. It worked when Daddy was just some crazed bad guy with the slightest strand of decency left in him. Of course, now that we know Daddy much better, the redemption plot seems less compelling.

                2. Strip away the fantasy, Star Wars was just a story about a sensitive seventies dude fighting Nazis. Trying to live up to his pop’s battles without losing his own New Age values.

                  Amazing that even with that theme so evident, Ultimate Jackass Spielberg had nothing to do with the series.

  18. Hillary:

    I’m on the side of the Constitution and the rule of law; you are not.

    1. Yes, but we control the military now.

  19. For your friday morning entertainment…
    Douchebags and the Women Who Love Them

    1. I’m sure the categories need not be mutually exclusive, but that strikes me as the more natural pairing of “trashy ho’s with douchebags.” NTTAWWT.

      1. I don’t disagree, and am realistically just upset that there aren’t more trashy ho’s to go around.

    2. You’ve just now discovered HCWDB?!?! You got a lot boobs and greasy hair to catch up on. The Reader Mail is always the best, though.

      1. I know – I’m pretty lame. I spend too much time reading about baseball and hex-and-counter based games. And here. I am a very unusual sort of dork.

        1. Actually it sounds like you’re a pretty usual kind of Dork.

    3. To be fair, most of the chicks also look like douchebags.

      1. There’s nothing like internet kissy face.

  20. Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong

    With an oddly promising quote from Mevdeyev:

    In the past Russia needed liberty to live [better]; it must now have it in order to survive.? The challenge of our times is an overhaul of the system of values, the forging of new consciousness. We cannot build a new country with the old thinking.? The best investment [the state can make in man] is Liberty and the Rule of Law. And respect for man’s Dignity.

    1. Thanks for sharing.

      And that Medvedev quote is both promising and foreboding.

  21. If you don’t support NATO airstrikes “accidently” taking out Libyan rebels, then you support Qaddafi.

  22. What does Monica Lewinsky think?

  23. This should have been part of the hack watch series…

  24. What a worthless cunt. Unfuckingbelievable.

    1. How anyone could want her to be president when she’s not particularly competent at anything she does is beyond me.

      1. Since I wasn’t buying the whole vacuous “everything to everybody” campaign the two things that most made me see what direction an Obama administration would go was picking Biden as VP over a Democrat from a western non-California state and picking Hillary as SecState.

        Voting for TARP etc can be seen as rational political gaming even if it is fucked up. And I realize that giving Hillary some job was necessary to buy her support and/or neutralize her as a political opponent. But State??? WTF are Hillary’s qualifications in foreign policy?

        1. The same as for the White House. Nil and none.

          1. There is one qualification: Overweening ambition.

            1. There is one qualification: Overweening ambition

              In DC, this is the only qualification that matters.

        2. Qualifications don’t matter once you are on the inside. Why the fuck was Panetta head of the CIA? He knows jack about intelligence. And now why is he going to Dept of Defense? He knows jack about that.

          I wish the soul of Jonathan Swift could be re-born to write a modern day parody of our joke of a government. It would sell more copies than Harry effin’ Potter.

          1. For all the criticism Bush got over his FEMA appointments, at least the defense and state secretaries actually had prior experience in those areas. (Obama “staying the course” with Gates as SecDef doesn’t count)

          2. I mostly agree, though I suppose one argument is that Panetta has significant administrative experience as former head of the OMB and former Chief of Staff. And, of course, he was in Congress.

            Personally, I think that works for agencies with less specialized requirements, but I’m not sure it’s so great for intelligence or defense. I’m not saying that spies and soldiers are the only people qualified to run the CIA or DoD–they aren’t–but the problem with some one who lacks substantive experience is that they usually give too much deference to their minions or make stupid decisions out of ignorance. Not always but often enough.

            I think Panetta is generally respected in DC. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question. I met him briefly at the OMB 25th Anniversary party (he was CoS by then–Alive Rivlin was head of the OMB), but I had almost no other interaction with him.

        3. WTF are Hillary’s qualifications in foreign policy?

          She was married to Bill Clinton.

      2. To think that William Bligh had to live with this shrew for 30 years.

      3. How anyone could want her to be president when she’s not particularly competent at anything she does is beyond me.

        48% of Americans think Obama deserves to be reelected.

        1. I don’t buy that for a second. Even the liberals I know don’t care much for him. The fact is, particularly on the left, no one wants to come out and say they don’t like him, even in a poll, for fear of being tarred by the racist brush. His administration is enormously unpopular, as polls showing the wholesale disapproval of his policies indicate.

          1. The liberals who don’t like him are still going to vote for him. And they are quite vocal in stating that, which is bizarre if you think about it.

            1. I don’t doubt the core will, to the extent that they show up. That’s one reason the GOP is pimping for a “moderate” candidate, to avoid freaking out the Democrats and driving them to the polls.

              However, the GOP, I think, is wrong to worry. The big issue is the more moderate Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Most of them are likely to see Obama’s flaws–and the frozen economy–as fatal.

            2. It’s this dynamic where since the GOP has become more conservative it makes the Democratic candidate, disappointing though he may be, seem like the hands down better candidate to liberals.

              1. Before they even know who the GOP candidate is?

                And of course, even if you think you’re going to vote for Obama anyway, why don’t you try to at least plant a seed in his mind that you might not do so if he keeps doing anti-liberal things? By saying you’re voting for him no matter what you proclaim your irrelevance.

                1. By saying you’re voting for him no matter what you proclaim your irrelevance.

                  And they’ll be irrelevant all during Obama’s second term.

              2. The recent hints that we might experience a prolonged downturn in the economy–which explains recent actions to manipulate oil prices, for instance–are pretty serious, and I’d be surprised if there isn’t at least some thought at the DNC level to encourage Obama to step down if the situation remains the same in 2012. Not that I think that will happen, but the present circumstances are pretty bad for the president.

                I agree that only the more moderate or even conservative Democrats (there are some, strangely) will be willing to cross the aisle, but that would be enough, especially if the enthusiasm remains low and the GOP doesn’t run a candidate that inflames leftish ire without being otherwise popular enough to overcome it. Palin or Huckabee, for instance.

        2. ….campaign war chest will be funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, Soros, Hollywood limousine liberals, Goldman Sachs, Big Banks, GM, GE, government-employee unions and other beneficiaries of the big bailout…Obama will call this a grass-roots campaign.

          1. He’s got to stand up to the GOP and its corporate overlords, you know.

  25. Dear Prudie

    I am a widower in my mid-50s with three grown children and many grandchildren. My wife died 10 years ago, and three years ago I moved into a new house. I hit it off very quickly with my next door neighbors “Jack” and “Diane,” a married couple in their late 30s with a now-7-year-old son. Our relationship soon became sexual and we are a three-member “couple.” Their son, whom I love dearly, has his own bedroom at my house and calls me “Uncle.” The problem is my youngest son recently lost his job, is in terrible financial straits, and has asked if he, his wife, and two young children can move in with me!

    1. You have to answer Hillary’s question first before you get any advice.

    2. Sounds like Mellencamp needs to add a couple more verses to his song.

      1. +1
        Or the guy can get busy trying to figure out what to do about those little pink houses he’s become so fond of.

  26. I think it’s because the presidency isn’t about competence, but rather what appearance thereof can be built by the marketing around the politician’s brand.

    I doubt that most people who’d vote for Carpetbagger have the presence of mind to consider that she’s spouting the same defense of an unconstitutional war as her boss’ predecessor. To them, Iraq was about greedy oil men in the White House, and Libya is about removing an evil dictator so that Libyans will welcome us with open arms as liberators. The rhetoric can be copied verbatim, they won’t care.

  27. So I’ve scanned MSNBC, the Washington Post, and now the New York Times, and I’ve seen no reporting regarding this story.

    1. I’m shocked!

    2. Because the good intentions are so obvious and affirming. How could Hillary stating her support for the good guys be actual news? Only troglodytes actually care about the legitimacy of the process and they all watch Fox.

  28. I have my brilliant Harvard intellectuals working on white papers particularizing justifications for my aggressive military-interventionist positions. Ms Clinton is merely expounding one of the talking points….

  29. ….that Napolitano was the only Stalinist cunt in this administration, but now I know differently….Barack sure knows how to pick them. From Clinton-era embarrassment to Bush-era disgust to Obama-era revulsion. I just want to throw up now…

  30. There goes the meme that with the Obama administration we now have the “adults” in charge. “Whose side are you on” is a playground argument, like kids fighting over the teeter-totter.

    1. The analogy of politics and playgrounds seems apt: After a few times around on the merry-go-round, I usually want to puke.

    2. And the libertarians are the playground flashers showing the kids what no one wants to see.

      1. Leave my girlfriend alone.

      2. Your personal fantasies are none of our business, Hobie.

      3. Yeah, reality is unpopular.

  31. But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them?

    Actually, Ms Clinton, as a resident of one of the countries in the “international coalition”, I also am opposed to the Libyan adventure.

    I maintain that Libyans should not be bombed by the armed forces of my country or yours “for their own good.”

    I would like to see the Libyan people free. That cannot happen if we choose their destiny for them. Drawing on the words of Niccolo Machiavelli, I “would not deprive them of that share of the glory which is theirs>’

    As Quaddafi staked out in the desert hooked up to a drinking tube with a half gallon of water. Just enough so that he would take a few days to die.

  32. Secretary Clinton needs to be reminded that the first priority of Congress (and the Administration) is (or should be) to be on the side of the Constitution.

  33. The evul terrists — when does Hillary put on her Texan twang?

  34. So I know we live in a hyper-information-centric world right now, and March seems like it’s a decade ago, but by my calendar, it’s only months.

    Remember “weeks, not months”? I guess we’ve officially moved on from that to “months, not decades”.

    I like the lament about the information-centric world that makes it so hard for the admin to hide their little wars and the civilian-killing oopsies they entail.

  35. ….it’s Dick Cheney, no…

    It’s Hillary, heroine of the War-Time, Treasury-Looting, Liberal-Progressives!

    Remember, “Money is flowing…”

  36. Is there a chance that Libya would trade dictators with us? Because, if so, I would be on Quadaffi’s side, obviously. Or was she asking a different question?

  37. Sarkozy gets pissed having to spend some of *his* money on war:…..901D64.DTL

    “”I wouldn’t say that the bulk of the work in Libya is being done by our American friends,” Sarkozy told reporters in Brussels”
    Why, shame of the US for not doing all the fighting for France’s oil.

    1. I wouldn’t either. I’d say all of the work. Like usual.

      Get a military, or bow to your American overlords.

  38. Whenever I start thinking too much about what an awful president Obama is, I have to remind myself that Hillary was the most likely alternative. It does make me feel a little better.

  39. It’s kinda funny that the Dems are doing the “You’re with the terrorists thing!!!!!” now. This story reminds me of how Harry reid basically said that Rand Paul was on the side of the terrorists during the whole PATRIOT act renewal thing. At least Paul had the balls to respond to that remark, let’s see if anyone else in Congress will as well…

  40. She’s asking fence sitters and side-line-critics to make public their preference between the two Libyan factions.

  41. “Power is such a profoundly ugly thing. I sincerely hope every anti-war demonstrator-turned Obama voter gets Clinton’s quote tattooed on their forehead.”

    Or, y’know, maybe conservatives could think about all the times they hurled that invective at us, and apologize. Nahhhhh….it’s the liberals fault. Always is.

    I have to say that the outrage from Hot Air is especially rich, as Malkin was one of the top purveyors of the “Are you with Bush, or are you against freedom?” crap. I remember when Cynthia McKinney punched that cop, Malkin claimed it was proof that liberals hate America. Good times.

    1. Whose side are YOU on?

      1. The side that doesn’t support unnecessary, poorly planned wars. The side that doesn’t torture. The side that doesn’t equate support for said wars and torture with patriotism. In other words, apparently not your side.

        1. Mr Red, meet Mr Blue, your identical twin separated at birth.

        2. I think you have that all in reverse, Ian — you seem to be saying you support the Libyan war or am I missing something. Hillary is equating an aggressive, unprovoked war with patriotism. The Libyan war is far from a well-planned one or a necessary one — looks more like another idiotic, bloody, interventionist,wasteful war — an extension of the Bush policy. As the War Chief Obama himself would say when referring to other matters, “it’s a false choice.”

          The best choice is save the money, save American lives, get out — not choosing Kaddafi or the “freedom-loving” rebels.

          Also, I hope you are secure in your belief that the Obama Administration will not lie to you about torture and secret wars.

    2. Or, y’know, maybe conservatives could think about all the times they hurled that invective at us, and apologize.

      Isn’t this the very definition of political cynicism?

      Bush did it to us, so we’ll do it to them?

      What happened to doing what’s right?

      No higher ground with the Democrats, I can see.

      1. There’s no higher ground, period. I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for any of these left-wing hypocrites and hate mongers to apologize for and take back all their smears and Godwins against Bush, or Palin, or Reagan, or the Tea Party, or…

    3. The outrage from you parasites and traitors when you get called on all your blatant hypocrisy is rich: all through Bush’s time as President you screamed he was a “war monger” and compared him to Hitler and bashed our military and did everything you could to undermine the war effort; this despite the big names among Democrats (such as Hillary, for one) having voted to authorize the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They gleefully joined in your hate rallies.

      Now your beloved community organizer has shown all your “pacifism” up for what we on the right all knew it was: nothing but hate, hate, hate against Bush. When your Bush-blamer-in-chief goes mongering wars in Libya and Yemen without so much as a friendly request to Congress for authorization, are you out there bashing him for war mongering? Are you out there comparing him to Hitler and doing everything to undermine his war efforts?

      No, you’re out here screaming that anyone who opposes this preening fraud and his purely optional wars (which don’t even have any measurable objectives) is “raaacist!!!” for opposing him, all because of the color of his skin. (Well, it’s not as if he has any content to his character by which to measure him, is it?) You’re hurling invective at us even now while crying and whining about hurled invective! You’re even complaining about how we took apart that certifiable lunatic Cynthia McKinney. What’s next, your defense for Commie Van Jones the Truther?

      No, we shan’t be taking back our accurate descriptions of you, since we’ve heard no apologies from you for all the hate you mongered against America while Bush was in charge. You’ve obviously got no real loyalty to America now; as soon as we throw out your failed leader and install a real President again, you’ll be back to comparing this country to Nazi Germany. You losers never can take what you dish out to others.

      As a bonus, might I remind you that this isn’t exactly Hillary’s first time around the block when it comes to “war mongering” either? You screaming hypocrites were quiet just like mice back then too when her husband was going around using our military in countries of no concern to us not only without authorization, but over the protests of Congress. I can see people being appalled at what she’s saying, but is anyone really surprised she’s fallen back on her old habits?

  42. … so, lemme get this straight: the Republicans yell this kind of nonsense at Democrats from 2001 through… all the time (which I’m sure was appropriately condemned by the wise elders of Reason, are the search archives broken, etc.) Democrats complain about that. Then, Hillary makes this comment… and unless the Democrats disavow Obama completely, they deserve to be forcibly tattoo-ed. Ah… libertarians. And they wonder why the Democrats don’t want to listen.

    1. “unless the Democrats disavow Obama completely, they deserve to be forcibly tattoo-ed.”

      Well, not quite. Libertarians are united in the cause of just breaking their legs. Well, maybe beating them senseless, too.

    2. Ah… libertarians. And they wonder why the Democrats don’t want to listen.

      Democrats don’t listen to us because we disagree profoundly on so many things.

      Like starting senseless wars in the middle east.

      Democrats: For
      Libertarians: Against

    3. “Pardner, looks like it’s time you switched brands!” [He holds up a red-hot cattle iron from the fire.]

    4. Don’t wonder. Personally don’t care if a liberal listens or not. Liberals are so disingenuous. There is less information to public about the Libyan conflict than the Iraq conflict. Your buddies in the media are doing a good job keeping you from having to explain your hypocrisy. And Liberals wonder why the public won’t listen to them.

  43. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

    1. “There are no absolutes.”

      1. What is truth?

        The concept sounds overly absolute to me.

  44. I guess 2/3 of the Congress is going to be on the no-fly list tomorrow:…..51080.html

  45. I wonder if any innocent people are dying from the airstrikes against Libya? Doesn’t matter since neither Bush or McCain is the President getting us in unforeseen wars. Why isn’t the media showing us and discussing every dead mother or father and orphaned kid? But then again, we are not at war, this is a NATO led operation.

    Visited the DK, DU, BF liberal websites and saw no critiques of the Libyan action. I like how liberals pretend as though they have more integrity than Republicans.

  46. By forcing those who wish to remain neutral into joining you don’t you simply end up allying with the the likes of the Lanisters?

    yeah I know that is stretched…but a Game of Thrones analogy must be found for every turn of events.

    1. One peculiar thing about the fall of the Roman Republic was that the republicans, led by Pompey, adopted the “If you’re not for us you are against us” policy while Ceasar adopted a policy of “If you’re not against us, you are for us”. It was a key decision that helped Ceasar win.

      (FWIW, it should be noted that Pompey’s faction was, in reality, no more true to the Republic than Ceasar’s. The Republic was moribund by the time of Sulla’s dictatorship and effectively dead by the First Triumvirate.)

  47. Can someone say “loaded question”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.