Barack Obama

Dean Screams for Drones

|

YEAARGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

In the January issue of Reason, in the L.A. Times last month, in our book, and out on the promotional hustings, Nick Gillespie and I have been talking about how the Howard Dean anti-war left dissipated as a direct result of being subsumed within the Democratic Party behind standard-bearer Barack Obama. So what is Howard Dean's take on Libya, then? The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf checks in:

On Wednesday morning, for example, he went on MSNBC, where he praised President Obama for the war in Libya. "It's very smart. You don't put boots on the ground. You don't commit trillions of dollars to a war in Iraq," he said. "You do it with the other tools that we have that frankly work much better over the long term because you don't get a lot of public resistance—drones, special operations forces, use of intelligence agencies. That's exactly what he did."

From the Reason archives: Eight years ago this Sunday, I wrote a piece titled "Intervention Logic," that discussed in part how Howard Dean advocated "boosting troop levels in Afghanistan by 500 percent, and making a nation-building commitment to Baghdad that far outstrips what the Bush Administration currently contemplates."

NEXT: Reading Is Fundamentally Forbidden

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Party trumps ideology every time. Except for Greens and Libertarians. And anti-war activists are the biggest hypocrites on the planet (OK, maybe gay Republicans top that.)

    1. …Greens….

      So, it’s okay to admit to liking Eddie Vedder/Pearl Jam?

      1. Only if it is meant sarcastically pre-Yield.

      2. It’s evolution baaaaaby!

        1. It’s pathetic how I still get teary-eyed when I listen to the cover of “Last Kiss.” It came out around the time I started getting into music.

          1. You’re old.

            Oh, you said ‘cover.’

            Shit, I’m old.

    1. Right after I finish gutting this puppy

  2. How pathetic. What have we won? Why did we do this? What about the unconstitutionality of the whole action?

    Crap, we can bomb any country we want without too much fear of direct retaliation. Why not bomb North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? France?

    1. Boom goes London, boom Pariee
      Let’s drop the big one now.

    2. I’m on it!

    3. Some oil, although that may be more what’s in it for the European members of NATO.

  3. You don’t put boots on the ground. . . . You do it with the other tools that we have that frankly work much better over the long term because you don’t get a lot of public resistance — drones, special operations forces, use of intelligence agencies.

    Our spec ops folks float a few inches above the ground? They’re barefoot? They literally walk on water (everywhere they go)?

    1. Robots. Biden has been talking again.

    2. I think maybe he meant very special ops people, i.e. the ones with shiny shoes rather than boots. The ones who slip poison into someone’s drink rather than calling att’n to themselves with firearms or knives — or if they do have to get bloody, dispose of the body so as not to be noticed.

    3. Yeah, it took how long to get results w/ these tactics against a 3rd rate nobody in N Africa. Let’s see how long Droonnnns last in a real conflict w/ a near-peer. So friggin narrow-minded. b4 i get flamed, I’m not advocating any more wars anytime soon, its just that this is stoopid strategy for all contingencies. But what do I know, I’m only in the AF, in the middle east and have a special ops background…

  4. I don’t know who this Howard Dean person is.

    1. Doesn’t he have a hotel/restaurant chain of some sort? Or is he a sausage king?

      1. Ron Jeremy is the Sausage King

        1. I was thinking Jimmy Dean, guys. You know, breakfast sausage. Food.

          1. YEah, I know. I wasn’t thinking Jimmy Dean…:)

          2. ALSO, BOB EVANS, GOD DAMNIT!

            1. HoJo.

        2. No, no, no. Keanu Reeves is the king of breakfast sausages.

        3. Ron Jeremy is the Sausage King

          I have it on good authority that Abe Froman is the Sausage King.

  5. No, I’m the DNC sausage king!

    1. No, I’m the DNC sausage king queen!

  6. “It’s very smart. You don’t put boots on the ground. You don’t commit trillions of dollars to a war in Iraq,” he said. “You do it with the other tools that we have that frankly work much better over the long term because you don’t get a lot of public resistance — drones, special operations forces, use of intelligence agencies. That’s exactly what he did.”

    If he said that laissez-faire capitalism and respect for individual rights were the ultimate solution to most of our biggest problems–should I disagree with him just because he’s Howard Dean?

    1. But that’s not what he said.

      You know who else said laissez-faire capitalism and respect for individ….never mind…

      1. “It’s very smart. You don’t put boots on the ground. You don’t commit trillions of dollars to a war in Iraq,” he said.”

        He’s 100% right about that.

        “You do it with the other tools that we have that frankly work much better over the long term because you don’t get a lot of public resistance — drones, special operations forces, use of intelligence agencies. That’s exactly what he did.”

        He might be right about that too–although I would have pointed out that freezing the dictator’s assets, and having his own people rise up against him were much more important than “drones, special operations forces, use of intelligence agencies…”

        The biggest danger outstanding from what’s going on in Libya–from an American perspective–is the U.S. getting sucked into putting troops on the ground…

        And one of the few ways that might happen is if Obama somehow gets credit for toppling the Gaddafi regime–which he didn’t do. If the public imagination starts to think Obama was somehow responsible for toppling the Gaddafi regime, he may start to think it’s imperative for him to guarantee the Libyan people’s continued freedom. Obama is, after all, an incompetent idiot, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what being an incompetent idiot is all about.

        If he were smart, Obama would just let all his cheerleaders give him all the credit in the media–but neither Obama nor the U.S. toppled the Gaddafi regime.

        The Libyan people did.

        Obama didn’t topple the Gaddafi regime. He didn’t do it with “drones, special operations forces or the use of intelligence agencies”. That’s exactly what Obama didn’t do. He assisted. They wouldn’t have won as they did without us, but we’re not responsible for toppling the Gaddafi regime. There are no U.S. ground troops in Libya. How could the U.S. be responsible for toppling the Gaddafi regime?

        1. Yes, Howard is right- you don’t topple Saddam Hussein by attacking Libya.

          Genius!

          1. I think the contrast with Iraq is pretty clear.

            For those of you keeping score–NeoCon Iraq is a total complete clusterfuck that’s cost the U.S. taxpayer $1 trillion and, more importantly, it cost us some 35,000 U.S. casualties.

            …and we still haven’t seen the end of it.

            Old school-pragmatist/Powell Doctrine Libya?

            Well, one Hit & Run post earlier today put the cost for Libya at almost $1 billion and, more importantly, it hasn’t cost the U.S. a single bent fingernail in casualties.

            There’s not freakin’ comparison…

            The other open question nobody talks about in the media is the most obvious question of all to me…

            If we’d waited, would the people of Iraq done what the people of Libya did?

            I think it’s reasonable to assume they would. It probably wouldn’t have looked exactly like Libya, it might have looked more like Syria. On the other hand, we did already have no-fly zones going in Iraq at the time…

            So, yeah, Howard Dean’s right about making the comparison of Libya to Iraq. If I could snap my fingers and made our efforts in Iraq just like our efforts in Libya? I’d do it in a heartbeat…

            Freedom isn’t something one country can force on another at the point of a gun–freedom is something people have to want and fight for themselves. If the Iraqi people weren’t ready yet to rise up and fight for their freedom, then we were stupid to try to force it on them.

            And I’m not gonna pretend Howard Dean was wrong about that just because he’s Howard Dean.

            1. I’ve had this debate before with you Ken, and you’re still wrong about Iraq.

              Plus, now you have the added benefit of comparing Qball with Saddam, which were two completely different regimes.

              I’m sure you’ll respond with all the reasons I’m wrong, but please forgive me for not wanting to waste my time on something we won’t agree on no matter what.

            2. The very first point of the Powell Doctrine is “Is a vital national security interest of the US at stake?” Libya isn’t even close.

              1. I made that case in another thread today.

                Suffice it to say, I think it was a vital security interest.

                And did I mention the cost up there?

                Why, yes I did!

                Anyway, we’ve never stuck by the Powell Doctrine strictly, but the general crux of it–not committing ground troops unless we had an exit strategy beforehand?

                That we stuck to until Bush the Lesser went into Iraq. …and the reason Iraq sucks so bad is because our only exit strategy before we went into Iraq was democracy blooming like a garden in the desert.

                Contrast that to never putting any troops at all on the ground in Libya–and then having the benefit of a UN mandate?

                You see the difference there right? Iraq wasn’t like that at all.

                1. You seriously think Libya was a “vital national security interest”?

                  Wow.

                  1. You seriously think Libya was a “vital national security interest”

                    Absolutely. We had to protect the USD. We couldn’t have Gaddafi selling Brent for gold-backed Dinars.

                    1. Just wait until Chavez tries to pull the same stunt.

                      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..l-starting

                  2. 1) We’ve been supporting vicious dictators against Muslim and Arab peoples since the Cold War–now we’re getting on the right side of history.

                    We’re not there yet, but hopefully Libya was an inflection point.

                    Those vicious dictators and their oppression were breeding grounds for anti-American terrorism.

                    2) Al Qaeda used to argue that their form of jihad was the only viable means of opposing the vicious dictators that plagued the Muslim and Arab worlds. And right about now, Al Qaeda’s ultimately feckless form of jihad looks about as useful and practical as Gaddafi himself.

                    If Muslim and Arab peoples have a truly viable alternative to Islamists and jihad against the West?

                    It undercuts the terrorists’ argument for Islamist government and jihad against the West.

                    Cooperation with the West–including the United States– while demanding respect for human rights, etc.?

                    Those things just did for the people of Libya what Islamists and jihad against the west–never achieved despite decades of trying.

                    We help accomplish those two things–at a cost of about $1 billion and no American casualties…

                    And I’m supposed to pretend that’s a bad deal?! Or am I supposed to pretend that’s just as bad as squandering $1 trillion and 35,000 American casualties on Iraq?

                    1. Al Qaeda used to argue that their form of jihad was the only viable means of opposing the vicious dictators that plagued the Muslim and Arab worlds. And right about now, Al Qaeda’s ultimately feckless form of jihad looks about as useful and practical as Gaddafi himself.

                      If Muslim and Arab peoples have a truly viable alternative to Islamists and jihad against the West?

                      It undercuts the terrorists’ argument for Islamist government and jihad against the West.

                      Cooperation with the West–including the United States– while demanding respect for human rights, etc.?

                      Those things just did for the people of Libya what Islamists and jihad against the west–never achieved despite decades of trying.

                      No Arab in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Bahrain is stupid enough to think that cooperation with the West is a viable avenue toward getting rid of their dictators.

                      Arabs will (correctly I’m afraid) note the long-standing bone we had to pick with Gaddafi and write off Libya as an exception. The fact that the BO administration clumsily tried to support Mubarak in the early days of the Tahrir Square uprising is going to lend credence to that view, along with our standing idly by as the Saudis put down uprisings in Bahrain.

                      You’re sacrificing the lives of innocent people — inevitable in an air war — all on the basis of a fantasized chain of events to make some other group have positive feelings towards us. Not enough to justify killing people in my book.

                    2. “We” have done NOTHING.

                      And “we” are not getting on the “right” side of history here either.
                      Keep those wretched collectivist terms to yourself.

                      If the Muslim fanatics end up taking over in those countries and end up being even worse to their people than the dictators they had, don’t dare use the word “we”. America helped the Taliban against the Soviet invaders, and look how that turned out.

                      Iraq, Libya, in both cases they are wars that had nothing to do with defending America, so they are EXACTLY the same. They are illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter how long they lasted, how much they cost or what weapons were used.

                    3. “America helped the Taliban against the Soviet invaders, and look how that turned out.”

                      You mean we won the Cold War?

                    4. no, we lost Afghanistan, right after having it. How did that work out for us?

                      And, who is to say that Libya’s new govt won’t be even worse than Qaddafi? By the way, why isn’t Howie (and you) making the case for going into Syria in some way since, by every empirical standard, Assad is worse than Mo?

                    5. “And “we” are not getting on the “right” side of history here either.
                      Keep those wretched collectivist terms to yourself.”

                      In what way is unwinding our historical support/coddling of vicious dictators a “collectivist” idea?

                      Absurd.

                2. Suffice it to say, Ken, you are an avid warmonger just like I am — I have created the BarryO doctrine of knocking the shit out of the guys I don’t like. I will topple and assassinate as I think fit for America. Thanks for your support. I am pressing on to impose control in Afrika and the Greater Mid-East and I know you will support me whatever I do. Securing oil for Western companies and keeping China out are my goals. I can keep the costs in line, say in the hundreds of billions, oh maybe a trillion, but think about all those defense jobs I am creating or saving, and I am killing fewer innocent children (right?) than Bush did too……Oh what a great peacemaker am I! Don’t forget to check under your bed tonight: there might be a terrorist hiding there. Also remember, Ken, this is a secret, keep it quiet, but none of my war successes would be possible without Bushie having fucked over Saddam and the Iraqis.

                  !Warfare/Welfare OBAMA 2012!

                  1. Yeah, I’m a warmonger who just happened to vociferously oppose the Iraq War here at Hit & Run for years–but it’s all a big fascinating conspiracy…I’m sure.

                    Aren’t you late for a truther convention or something?

                    1. Just curious Ken, but you approve of the war in which the president ignored Congress and the War Powers Act and you disapprove of the one where the president got an AUMF?

                    2. I’d rather we did everything constitutionally.

                      Within the context of an argument about whether Congress should support what the president did in Libya? I’d argue that they should support what he did in Libya.

                      …so long as it didn’t involve deploying any American troops.

                      And I would further emphasize that, within the context of that debate, that if what we did in Iraq was stupid? It wasn’t significantly less so for being constitutional.

                      Actually, there must be millions of things out there that people can do that are both perfectly constitutional and profoundly stupid.

                      If ObamaCare were constitutional, would that somehow make it smart?

                    3. I’d rather we did everything constitutionally.

                      We agree!

                      Within the context of an argument about whether Congress should support what the president did in Libya? I’d argue that they should support what he did in Libya.

                      We disagree. And both wars were supported by Congress, Obama was just afraid he’d have to be put on record requesting an AUMF for Libya, hoping no one would call him out for being full of shit during the 08 campaign.

                      Still, full of shit!

                      …so long as it didn’t involve deploying any American troops.

                      The Navy and Airforce were deployed in Libya, and two pilots did indeed get “boots on the ground”. I’m not sure why having troops “on the ground” is such a big deal though. Flying hundreds of sorties with F16’s on tight schedules isn’t exactly a day at the zoo either.

                      And I would further emphasize that, within the context of that debate, that if what we did in Iraq was stupid? It wasn’t significantly less so for being constitutional.

                      So if Obama mobilized several battalions and had a ground force invade Libya but didn’t get an AUMF than this would still be ok?

                      Again, I’m not conceding the point about Iraq, but I’m not rehashing this argument again. Swing away if you want, but we can just agree to disagree.

                      Actually, there must be millions of things out there that people can do that are both perfectly constitutional and profoundly stupid.

                      You can’t outlaw stupidity. You can get rid of bad laws.

                      If ObamaCare were constitutional, would that somehow make it smart?

                      No. But it’s somewhat irrelevant to War powers as opposed to the Commerce Clause.

                    4. “The Navy and Airforce were deployed in Libya, and two pilots did indeed get “boots on the ground”. I’m not sure why having troops “on the ground” is such a big deal though. Flying hundreds of sorties with F16’s on tight schedules isn’t exactly a day at the zoo either.”

                      It matters for a couple of important reasons.

                      1) The perception that we’re conquerors makes us responsible to the conquered and for the conquered.

                      We don’t have to worry about an insurgency in Libya–because we’re not in Libya. If only we’d been able to do this in Iraq, we wouldn’t be there years after Saddam Hussein was dead still trying to solve all of Iraq’s political, economic, ethnic and religious problems.

                      2) Losing troops on the ground makes it hard–extremely hard–to leave unless there’s total victory.

                      Vietnam is an excellent example. Even when it was in our best interest to pull out–we stayed years longer than we should have anyway. Whether we “won” or “lost” shouldn’t have mattered to the decision makers–it should have just mattered whether it was better for the U.S. to stay or leave…

                      But that’s not the way it works. I still see MIA flags around sometimes. If you want to avoid an open-ended commitment, don’t put any boots on the ground. Boots on the ground is a huge part of what makes long, drawn out, open-ended commitments possible.

                      For that reason, the only time I think it’s okay to put boots on the ground is in a war of self-defense.

                    5. The point in the end, though, is the purpose of the military is not for strategic gain. It’s purely self-defense. Thus, I don’t really care about “getting on the right side of history” in Libya. Libya didn’t attack us and isn’t us, so I really couldn’t care less about it.

                    6. And I would further emphasize that, within the context of that debate, that if what we did in Iraq was stupid? It wasn’t significantly less so for being constitutional.

                      Actually, there must be millions of things out there that people can do that are both perfectly constitutional and profoundly stupid.

                      If ObamaCare were constitutional, would that somehow make it smart?

                      This logical fallacy is so stupid I’m not even sure it has a name. Have you totally come off your rocker, Shultz?

                    7. “vociferously oppose the Iraq War here at Hit & Run for years”

                      Maybe that’s why your slavish devotion to Obama’s militarism seems somewhat bizarre.

            3. It would be nice Ken, if you had a clue what you are pontificating on, but you don’t, so STFU. The US press has not reported that Petraeus begged Obama not to pull the troops from the streets of Iraq – Obama wouldn’t listen. DoD begged the president not to release the Irbil five, yet again, the president wouldn’t listen. President teleprompter called the DoD, asking for a plan that would aid the rebels, depose Gaddifi without targeting him, and all in a matter of days – not weeks. DoD said it couldn’t be done, but Obama ordered them in nonetheless. In case you haven’t noticed (head in sand) battles are raging throughout Libya as we type – nothing has been ‘won’.
              Bigger point, you idiots keep asking if the ‘arab spring’ would have taken off in Iraq? Cause and effect mixed up sunshine. The Iraqis had no cell phones, satellite or internet. They tried in 1991, when Bush the elder called on them to rise up; by the time the US got permission from the UN to establish first the Southern and then the Northern no-fly zones the Republican Guards had killed between 120,000 and 180,000 Iraqis. A higher death toll than the current war, I’ll have you note. And the sanctions? An estimated death toll of 500,000. Five times the current death toll.
              The disgusting thing about all this is that all the effort in Iraq was thrown away. The surge had worked, and had sparked revolutions in nearby countries (Lebanon) but you idiots threw it all away. Not only did Obama not listen to the brass concerning the situation in Iraq, he also cut in half the funding Bush had allocated to help establish democracies in the MENA, something the US had done in much of Eastern Europe before the wall fell. Don’t try and play the realist, please, because if you insist on holding such a position, may I ask what exactly is your plan to secure/destroy the 10 tons of mustard gas still sitting in Libya?

              1. “It would be nice Ken, if you had a clue what you are pontificating on, but you don’t, so STFU.”

                Blah, blah, blah…

                “Bigger point, you idiots keep asking if the ‘arab spring’ would have taken off in Iraq? Cause and effect mixed up sunshine. The Iraqis had no cell phones, satellite or internet. They tried in 1991, when Bush the elder called on them to rise up…”

                You’ve got some interesting points to make, but name calling makes you look like a loser…

                In 1991, almost no one in the United States had internet access. AOL hadn’t started calling itself AOL until 1991. Netscape wasn’t founded until 1994. Google wasn’t founded until 1998

                Both Facebook and Twitter didn’t exist until after we’d invaded Iraq under Bush the Lesser.

                We’ll never know what might have been in some parallel world where we didn’t invade Iraq when we did–it’s a pointless exercise. …other than to point out that supporting people who rise up to overthrow their own dictator is vastly superior to invading and occupying a foreign country and inflicting freedom and democracy on them at the point of a gun.

                It’s better in terms of cost in both American lives and American treasure.

                The reason Bush the Elder didn’t invade to support the rebels in 1991 was because he was sticking to the Powell Doctrine, and he didn’t want to be responsible for all the problems of the Iraqi people. It’s unclear to me that the problems we’re dealing with in Iraq now would have been better if we’d occupied that country since ’91 rather than ’03.

                The other reason we didn’t want to take out Saddam Hussein was because his regime acted as a buffer against another one of our enemies–Iran.

                Nothing about either one of those calculations changed in 2003. If it was true in 1991, it was still true in 2003. I opposed invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons (both American and Iraqis) and because I saw it as a strategic blunder vis a vis Iran.

                I still maintain that us standing on top of a powder keg in Iraq, with the fuse running all the way to Tehran, is partially to blame for emboldening Iran into pursuing its nuclear program. I found it particularly hard to take when the people of Iraq voted in the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution to lead the government!

                This was a party that was created by and financed by the state of Iran! That was what we were fighting for?!

                “The Iranian Islamic revolutionary government arranged for the formation of SCIRI, which was based in exile in Tehran and under the leadership of Mohammad-Baqir al-Hakim.”

                “In light of its gains in the three 2005 elections and government appointments, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council became one of Iraq’s most powerful political parties and was the largest party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives until the 2010 Iraqi elections.”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..il_of_Iraq

                Huge mistake. It may be that we never should have invaded Iraq whether the Iraqis rose up against their dictator or not. Supported of Iraqi rebels? I can understand that.

                What I have a hard time understanding it would have turned out worse for the USA if we had refrained from putting boots on the ground in Iraq.

                1. Way to miss the point – by a mile!!!!! Pundits, in the US, point to the extensive use of ‘social media’ to fuel the ‘arab spring’. What those of us who follow these matters point out is that because Iraqis couldn’t use social media, no arab spring would have been possible in Iraq. If you claim to have opposed the Iraq war for humanitarian reasons, how can you justify the sanctions, which had a five fold higher death toll? Logic, sir, try to use please.
                  Lastly, the Iranians? Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Iranian nuclear program began under the Shah. It was suspended after the revolution until 1984 when Khameni persuaded Khomeni to restart it. 1984! When the US was focused like a laser beam on bringing down the USSR. Do you really think the Iranians went nuclear when Bush was elected? Dude, how long do you think it takes the master the enrichment cycle? And that’s just one stage! Jesus, Christ, Allah, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster on a bicycle, that’s a level of naivet? that my twelve year old doesn’t exhibit.

                  1. Your point that I’m missing is that Facebook and Twitter–which didn’t exist anywhere in the world when we invaded in 2003–wouldn’t have existed in Iraq in 2011 during the Arab Spring? …and anybody who doesn’t understand that is missing the point?

                    I’m not willing to concede that opposition and overthrow were impossible before Facebook and Twitter; seems to me the Romanians did just fine without it. …but why we should assume that a technology that didn’t exist in 2003 also wouldn’t have existed in 2011?

                    Yer right, I don’t get it.

                    Iran’s nuclear program may have started under the Shah, but opening our soft underbelly and exposing it to the Iranians–with an Iranian backed political party in charge of the Iraqi government?

                    Why wouldn’t that embolden Iran to flaunt its nuclear program?

                    Why did Iran’s willingness to flaunt its international agreements in regards to its nuclear program coincide with the deteriorating situation in Iraq? I know correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but why wouldn’t those two things be related?

        2. I know an even better way to avoid committing ground troops to Libya in the inevitable post-rebellion power struggle: DON’T GET INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

          1. Sure, but then people like Ken won’t be able to get “us” on the “right side of history”.

            And that has to happen. After all, “we” are now all responsible for what a bunch of imperialist fucktard politicians have done decades ago.

            Just like currently unborn people will all be responsible for what warmongers like Ken are supporting now.

        3. Especially considering how difficult it is to win a kinetic military action as opposed to a war.

    2. “If he said that laissez-faire capitalism and respect for individual rights were the ultimate solution to most of our biggest problems–should I disagree with him just because he’s Howard Dean?”

      o, Ken, you should disagree with him because it’s a asinine position.
      BTW, how’s our street cred in the mid east? You told us this was going to wonders for it.

      1. That’s not an asinine position!

        Our street cred is on the way up. We’re still seen as the oppressors of the Iraqi people, and our support for those vicious dictators the Saudis isn’t helping the situation.

        Dictatorships disintegrating in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt mean good things for the US security though.

        It’s gonna be harder for Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans to blame the United States for suffering under the oppression of U.S. supported/coddled dictatorships–when there aren’t any dictators there anymore.

        And like I said up top, they’d have to be blind to think that Islamist governments and Al Qaeda style jihad are the path to freedom–when demanding human rights through protest, cooperation with the West, etc. just delivered the overthrow of three persistent dictatorships.

        Al Qaeda just looks like a relic. Rappers in North Africa did more to overthrow those dictators than Al Qaeda did. I really do think that Al Qaeda and their tactics are being marginalized in Arab/Muslim society.

        If everyday Muslims can spontaneously organize to overthrow their own dictators, then what do they need those radical sicko Al Qaeda freaks for?

        That’s what I’m still reading anyway.

        1. It’s gonna be harder for Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans to blame the United States for suffering under the oppression of U.S. supported/coddled dictatorships

          Gaddafi wasn’t supported by the US by any stretch of the imagination.

          Oh, I see. You added “coddled” in there so that even leaving a dictator alone and not overthrowing him is an offense against the people he’s oppressing. The guy who coined “created or saved” is probably envious.

          Your neocon transformation is complete.

        2. If everyday Muslims can spontaneously organize to overthrow their own dictators, then what do they need those radical sicko Al Qaeda freaks for?

          LOL. I guess that massive NATO bombing campaign against Gaddafi’s forces was “spontaneously organized” too, right?

          Methinks they know full well that if they want to overthrow a dictatorship the West likes — Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc — they’re better off dealing with the crazies.

    3. I noticed how similar Dean’s argument sounded to yours, Ken. It’s foolish either way.

      Just because it’s wasn’t done the way Iraq was done doesn’t make it legal or wise. The fact that it’s not as bad as cutting your hand off in a lawnmower blade does not make cutting your pinky off with a chef’s knife a smart thing to do.

    4. And let me note how amazing it is that, after posting the same ridiculous “IT’S NOT IRAQ SO IT’S GOOD” argument here several times, and getting the same vociferously negative response from most of the H&R regulars, Mr Shultz now has the gall to accuse us of opposing it just because Howard Dean said it.

  7. ALL HAIL MILITARY STRATEGIST AND LIBERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE SIR HOWARD ‘THE GENERAL’ DEAN!!!!

  8. That photo brings the phrase “vigorous fisting” to mind…

  9. There was a brief period when Howard Dean seemed to make sense. I guess being chairman of the DNC Brain Slug Party does terrible things to one’s thought processes.

    1. Damnit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Party Chair!

      1. Of the Dr. Deans, I prefer Edell.

  10. See, I can Killer-Drone little villages in Pakistan and kill innocent children without risk to American soldiers. See what a great Peace President I am?

  11. I would like to see a complete accounting of all the people killed by us, and those killed by Gaddaffy, and those killed by “parties unknown”, and their respective worth (moral and financial) laid out in spreadsheet form, with column totals.

    So I can see for myself if it was worth it.

  12. There are more enjoyable ways of killing kittens.

  13. Can’t pass this up:
    Women pursue labioplasty even when they’re ‘normal’ down there: study
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2142296/

  14. There’s a brand new dance but I don’t know its name.

    Ooooh, bop.

    Fashion.

    Beep beep.

    1. We are the goon squad and we’re coming to town

  15. Stupid wars are now acceptable because we have less troops on the ground and they are fought a little more intelligently? This will only encourage Obama to expand his deadly interventionist policies. These are exactly things the WarBush team would have come up with if he had had a third term. Only a fool would deny that.

  16. Isn’t the lying that gave us this “success” in Libya much worse than the lying preceding the invasion of Iraq?

  17. I vote that from now on all H&R pictures have kittens in them. Also, that all H&R posts are about kittens.

  18. What happened to Bush and Rumsfeld being fools for relying on specops and indigenous troops instead of putting 500k troops into Afghanistan?

  19. Now I have the urge to bust out my Dave Chapelle dvds.

  20. Are we sure that Howard Dean and Joe Biden aren’t the same person?

    It’s too early for the libs to start crowing about “mission accomplished.” The Iraqi War itself was basically a walk-over that took a couple of weeks. It’s the aftermath that has been problematic, as I predict it will be in Libya. No amount of American Know-How is going to change that.

    1. Apparently, the “win” in the Libya model has to do with the fact that Libya will be unstable and violent for years to come without our involvement.

      And, of course, we’ll be applauded throughout the Mideast for that.

    2. Are we sure that Howard Dean and Joe Biden aren’t the same person?

      No. Howard Dean rolls up his sleeves in that Union-bossesque-we’re-gettin-things-done kind of way. Biden has a mullet.

  21. “You do it with the other tools that we have that frankly work much better over the long term because you don’t get a lot of public resistance —

    That says it all, eh liberals? Bomb them from afar, and then you reduce public resistance. It’s not that Bush went to war, he went the wrong way– a way that allowed for public resistance. Obama, on the other hand.

    No, sorry, it’s not getting public resistance because the war is being waged by the anti-war left. See the difference?

  22. That photo is timeless.

  23. Calls for international

    It has been many years and US military is still in Afghanistan and Iraq. To help soldiers call back to the US from military bases, we have special phone cards at http://www.zscomm.com Soldiers and military can use the phone cards like Diamond, Edge and more to call back to US from Iraq and Afghanistan for cheaper rates.

    Name: Phone Card

    email: all23344@yahoo.co.ch

    website: http://www.zscomm.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.