Air support for al-Qaeda

Oh, great:

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25″ men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008. . . .

via Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links – Telegraph.

Do we have any idea what we are doing in our military interventions into the Arab world?

We assume that those who are rising up against brutal dictators–with another uprising now breaking out in Syria–are doing so for the universal desire for freedom.  But aren’t we projecting our own civilization on a very different civilization with very different foundations?

The jihadists, such as the members of al-Qaeda, have long called for the overthrow of these secularist and worldly dictators.   The jihadists may well be for democracy, which for them is not the expression of liberty but the vehicle for the imposition of Islamic law.

I’m not saying that this “rebel commander” is representative of all of the rebels against Gaddafi, and a mere 25 fighters are not very many, though he is suggesting that there are more.  But now our pilots, under the foreign command of NATO, are put in the position of defending some of the very men who fought against them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Carl Vehse

    One only has to see the FUBAR video in Doug Power’s column, “Hillary Stages ‘Kinetic Butinsky Action’ on Question Intended for SecDef,” to see that Hillary and Gates still don’t have their act together in appearances on NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s /i>This Week.

    Maybe tonight one TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) will present Hillary’s version and the other TOTUS will provide the SecDef’s view that Libya is not a “vital interest” for the U.S.

  • Carl Vehse

    One only has to see the FUBAR video in Doug Power’s column, “Hillary Stages ‘Kinetic Butinsky Action’ on Question Intended for SecDef,” to see that Hillary and Gates still don’t have their act together in appearances on NBC’s Meet the Press and ABC’s /i>This Week.

    Maybe tonight one TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) will present Hillary’s version and the other TOTUS will provide the SecDef’s view that Libya is not a “vital interest” for the U.S.

  • Porcell

    The truth is that militant Islamists including Hasadi will strive to take over the revolutions in the Middle East. We learned recently that the Muslim Brotherhood has become very influential with the Egyptian Army that is presently ruling Egypt.

    Clear-headed thinkers including Andy McCarthy and Mark Steyn are basically predicting that the Islamists will use us and then turn on us when they take power. McCarthy concludes a recent NRO article:

    …What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia. The Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us. If they succeed, so be it. But we have no vital interest in orchestrating that success, even if it would mean a thug like Qaddafi finally gets his just deserts. If we empower them, we will eventually rue the day.

  • Porcell

    The truth is that militant Islamists including Hasadi will strive to take over the revolutions in the Middle East. We learned recently that the Muslim Brotherhood has become very influential with the Egyptian Army that is presently ruling Egypt.

    Clear-headed thinkers including Andy McCarthy and Mark Steyn are basically predicting that the Islamists will use us and then turn on us when they take power. McCarthy concludes a recent NRO article:

    …What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia. The Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us. If they succeed, so be it. But we have no vital interest in orchestrating that success, even if it would mean a thug like Qaddafi finally gets his just deserts. If we empower them, we will eventually rue the day.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Thank you, gracious host, for the first actual description of who we’re helping. As in Kosovo, it doesn’t look good…..

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Thank you, gracious host, for the first actual description of who we’re helping. As in Kosovo, it doesn’t look good…..

  • Dennis Peskey

    Do we have any idea what we are doing in our military interventions into the Arab world?
    I am truly struggling with understanding whether this question was interrogative or rhetorical. When my father began my instruction on basic carpentry, his primary rule was “measure twice; cut once”. Would that our nation would employ such wisdom to our foreign policy prior to unleashing tomahawk missiles. I much prefer an inept thug like Qaddafi to the dangers inherent with sharia law administered by al-Queda. I would much prefer we reserved these missiles for Osama Bin-Laden; I have not forgotten what devastation this man wrought. I deeply regret we have not pursued this tyrant to the ends of the earth and witnessed this man tethered to the end of a hangman’s noose. Our nation needs a refresher course in identification of our enemies; primary retribution should focus on those would injure our citizens. The fact that certain “leaders” are a jerk does not warrant our intervention, especially when our focus should be on those who attacked our country.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Do we have any idea what we are doing in our military interventions into the Arab world?
    I am truly struggling with understanding whether this question was interrogative or rhetorical. When my father began my instruction on basic carpentry, his primary rule was “measure twice; cut once”. Would that our nation would employ such wisdom to our foreign policy prior to unleashing tomahawk missiles. I much prefer an inept thug like Qaddafi to the dangers inherent with sharia law administered by al-Queda. I would much prefer we reserved these missiles for Osama Bin-Laden; I have not forgotten what devastation this man wrought. I deeply regret we have not pursued this tyrant to the ends of the earth and witnessed this man tethered to the end of a hangman’s noose. Our nation needs a refresher course in identification of our enemies; primary retribution should focus on those would injure our citizens. The fact that certain “leaders” are a jerk does not warrant our intervention, especially when our focus should be on those who attacked our country.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • DonS

    If there were ever two situations where we needed to stand down, it was the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. We, more or less, did the right thing in Egypt, though I quibbled with some of the president’s statements and the timing of them. But, there is no discernible reason for us to be intervening militarily in Libya, especially without a plan, and with no idea as to whom we are assisting.

  • DonS

    If there were ever two situations where we needed to stand down, it was the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. We, more or less, did the right thing in Egypt, though I quibbled with some of the president’s statements and the timing of them. But, there is no discernible reason for us to be intervening militarily in Libya, especially without a plan, and with no idea as to whom we are assisting.

  • Kirk

    Wait, everyone on this blog should be happy about this. By arming terrorists, Obama is simply emulating Regan.

  • Kirk

    Wait, everyone on this blog should be happy about this. By arming terrorists, Obama is simply emulating Regan.

  • Kirk

    *Reagan

  • Kirk

    *Reagan

  • Porcell

    Kirk, Reagan stumbled on Iran-Contra, though he decisively declared the Soviet Union an evil empire, took major military steps, and with the help of JP II and Margaret Thatcher brought down the Soviet Union. Essentially Reagan was a smart and tough statesman who understood vital American interests.

    Obama is a muddling fellow who on the fundamental issue of Iranian nuclear weapons is involved in appeasement, while throwing feints with Afghanistan and Libya. Instead of defending vital American interests, he most of the time apologizes for them. Our enemies on the world stage view him as a joke. Now that Sarkozy and Cameron are leading the West, even our allies have taken true measure of this feckless leader.

    Obama is utterly incapable of emulating Reagan, notwithstanding your silly remark.

  • Porcell

    Kirk, Reagan stumbled on Iran-Contra, though he decisively declared the Soviet Union an evil empire, took major military steps, and with the help of JP II and Margaret Thatcher brought down the Soviet Union. Essentially Reagan was a smart and tough statesman who understood vital American interests.

    Obama is a muddling fellow who on the fundamental issue of Iranian nuclear weapons is involved in appeasement, while throwing feints with Afghanistan and Libya. Instead of defending vital American interests, he most of the time apologizes for them. Our enemies on the world stage view him as a joke. Now that Sarkozy and Cameron are leading the West, even our allies have taken true measure of this feckless leader.

    Obama is utterly incapable of emulating Reagan, notwithstanding your silly remark.

  • Lily

    Dr. Veith,

    I read an article this morning that may be of interest to you. If true, it adds some important things to consider when looking at the Middle East situation.

    Iranian Rulers, Believing Pre-Messianic Destruction Is Imminent, Make Film To Prepare Muslims
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-rulers-believing-pre-messianic-destruction-is-imminent-make-film-to-prepare-muslims

    Excerpt:
    We can’t overstate the importance of the English translation of this film: the Iranian leaders are telling the Muslim world to prepare for the annihilation of Israel and the fall of the West…

  • Lily

    Dr. Veith,

    I read an article this morning that may be of interest to you. If true, it adds some important things to consider when looking at the Middle East situation.

    Iranian Rulers, Believing Pre-Messianic Destruction Is Imminent, Make Film To Prepare Muslims
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranian-rulers-believing-pre-messianic-destruction-is-imminent-make-film-to-prepare-muslims

    Excerpt:
    We can’t overstate the importance of the English translation of this film: the Iranian leaders are telling the Muslim world to prepare for the annihilation of Israel and the fall of the West…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith asked, “Do we have any idea what we are doing in our military interventions into the Arab world?”

    To which my answer is: No, but I can’t help but notice that many “conservatives” only seem to voice concern about this when a Democrat is in the White House.

    We assume that those who are rising up against brutal dictators–with another uprising now breaking out in Syria–are doing so for the universal desire for freedom. But aren’t we projecting our own civilization on a very different civilization with very different foundations?

    Actually, the first assumption you list there was the basis of much of Bush’s actions. And, indeed, what has resulted in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly bear out that we cannot assume that everyone wants a secular republic like we Americans theoretically do.

    Al-Qaeda was practically nonexistant in Iraq until we moved in (and what little was operating there — up in Kurdistan, I believe — was something that Saddam tried to stop). Then they grew significantly, once we’d taken out Saddam.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith asked, “Do we have any idea what we are doing in our military interventions into the Arab world?”

    To which my answer is: No, but I can’t help but notice that many “conservatives” only seem to voice concern about this when a Democrat is in the White House.

    We assume that those who are rising up against brutal dictators–with another uprising now breaking out in Syria–are doing so for the universal desire for freedom. But aren’t we projecting our own civilization on a very different civilization with very different foundations?

    Actually, the first assumption you list there was the basis of much of Bush’s actions. And, indeed, what has resulted in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly bear out that we cannot assume that everyone wants a secular republic like we Americans theoretically do.

    Al-Qaeda was practically nonexistant in Iraq until we moved in (and what little was operating there — up in Kurdistan, I believe — was something that Saddam tried to stop). Then they grew significantly, once we’d taken out Saddam.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 10: Of course, we all have a tendency to be more critical of the actions of politicians we don’t generally support than of those we do. That’s human nature. Which helps to explain why a second observation that you didn’t make is equally valid — “liberal” commentators on this blog have been much more muted in their criticism of Obama’s military interventions than they were of Bush’s. And that same human nature probably helps to explain why you tend to be more vigilant in point out the inconsistencies of “conservative” commenters than you do of “liberal” commenters ;-)

    However, beyond natural tendencies of bias, at least Bush was able to articulate a rational national interest for his military forays into Iraq and Afghanistan, whether you agreed or disagreed with them. Obama has not been able to do the same concerning Libya. In fact, he and his supporters seem to believe that it is somehow more righteous to engage in military action if there is no U.S. interest in doing so — that this somehow makes it charitable or humanitarian. But, that leads to the slippery slope of whether we engage U.S. lives and treasure in every instance of conflict, no matter the U.S. interest, around the world in order to hopefully alleviate suffering. Of course, we cannot possibly do that, so we are left with an incomprehensible foreign policy.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 10: Of course, we all have a tendency to be more critical of the actions of politicians we don’t generally support than of those we do. That’s human nature. Which helps to explain why a second observation that you didn’t make is equally valid — “liberal” commentators on this blog have been much more muted in their criticism of Obama’s military interventions than they were of Bush’s. And that same human nature probably helps to explain why you tend to be more vigilant in point out the inconsistencies of “conservative” commenters than you do of “liberal” commenters ;-)

    However, beyond natural tendencies of bias, at least Bush was able to articulate a rational national interest for his military forays into Iraq and Afghanistan, whether you agreed or disagreed with them. Obama has not been able to do the same concerning Libya. In fact, he and his supporters seem to believe that it is somehow more righteous to engage in military action if there is no U.S. interest in doing so — that this somehow makes it charitable or humanitarian. But, that leads to the slippery slope of whether we engage U.S. lives and treasure in every instance of conflict, no matter the U.S. interest, around the world in order to hopefully alleviate suffering. Of course, we cannot possibly do that, so we are left with an incomprehensible foreign policy.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 10, Saddam Hussein supported al Quaeda’s Zarqawi in Iraq well before the American invasion: also, as the Duelfer report made clear Iraq was secretly continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction including nuclear ones. The idea that our invasion of Iraq was ill considered and the main cause of al Quaeda’s presence in Iraq is a liberal myth. The issue of Iraq was far more crucial to vital American and Western interests than those of Egypt and Libya.

    Also, Pres. Bush was advised by Bernard Lewis that Iraq, having a background of civilization and past development of a free economy, was a good candidate in the heart of the Middle East to develop an Arab form of democracy.

    Your cynical view that conservatives are opposed to Obama’s war on a partisan basis against Libya is simple minded and mistaken. Conservatives are well aware that, while Bush gave careful consideration to the war against Hussein’s Iraq, Obama has been floundering on both the Egyptian and Libyan issues, while appeasing Iran on the really crucial issue of its obvious development of nuclear weapons, which would have a disastrous effect on Western interests.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 10, Saddam Hussein supported al Quaeda’s Zarqawi in Iraq well before the American invasion: also, as the Duelfer report made clear Iraq was secretly continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction including nuclear ones. The idea that our invasion of Iraq was ill considered and the main cause of al Quaeda’s presence in Iraq is a liberal myth. The issue of Iraq was far more crucial to vital American and Western interests than those of Egypt and Libya.

    Also, Pres. Bush was advised by Bernard Lewis that Iraq, having a background of civilization and past development of a free economy, was a good candidate in the heart of the Middle East to develop an Arab form of democracy.

    Your cynical view that conservatives are opposed to Obama’s war on a partisan basis against Libya is simple minded and mistaken. Conservatives are well aware that, while Bush gave careful consideration to the war against Hussein’s Iraq, Obama has been floundering on both the Egyptian and Libyan issues, while appeasing Iran on the really crucial issue of its obvious development of nuclear weapons, which would have a disastrous effect on Western interests.

  • steve

    But wait, there’s more:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i0TETypz8_hEMkbRK_bibXB4UTJQ?docId=N0211441301031249982A
    This happened in southern Yemen where aQ is strongest. Saleh already had his hands full with the Houthi rebellion in the north, which has pretty much taken over control of certain areas, protests in Sana’a, and military and tribal defections. Libya gets more press because if its proximity to Europe but losing Yemen would put the Gulf of Aden and the Suez passageway in seious jeopardy.

  • steve

    But wait, there’s more:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i0TETypz8_hEMkbRK_bibXB4UTJQ?docId=N0211441301031249982A
    This happened in southern Yemen where aQ is strongest. Saleh already had his hands full with the Houthi rebellion in the north, which has pretty much taken over control of certain areas, protests in Sana’a, and military and tribal defections. Libya gets more press because if its proximity to Europe but losing Yemen would put the Gulf of Aden and the Suez passageway in seious jeopardy.

  • steve

    Hope this isn’t a dup.

    Islamic militants took control of a weapons factory in southern Yemen where aQ is strongest. Saleh already had his hands full with the Houthi rebellion in the north, which has pretty much taken over control of certain areas, protests in Sana’a, and military and tribal defections. Libya gets more press because if its proximity to Europe but losing Yemen would put the Gulf of Aden and the Suez passageway in seious jeopardy.

  • steve

    Hope this isn’t a dup.

    Islamic militants took control of a weapons factory in southern Yemen where aQ is strongest. Saleh already had his hands full with the Houthi rebellion in the north, which has pretty much taken over control of certain areas, protests in Sana’a, and military and tribal defections. Libya gets more press because if its proximity to Europe but losing Yemen would put the Gulf of Aden and the Suez passageway in seious jeopardy.

  • Tom Hering

    “… ‘liberal’ commentators on this blog have been much more muted in their criticism of Obama’s military interventions than they were of Bush’s.” – DonS @ 11.

    Well, sure. I have no better understanding of the reason for our Libya intervention than conservatives do. Maybe we’ll all be enlightened tonight, when the President addresses the nation.

    P.S. Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan policies are continuations of Bush’s military interventions. Isn’t that what conservatives wanted Obama to do? I seem to remember a lot of hollering when there was any suggestion of our military leaving either country.

  • Tom Hering

    “… ‘liberal’ commentators on this blog have been much more muted in their criticism of Obama’s military interventions than they were of Bush’s.” – DonS @ 11.

    Well, sure. I have no better understanding of the reason for our Libya intervention than conservatives do. Maybe we’ll all be enlightened tonight, when the President addresses the nation.

    P.S. Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan policies are continuations of Bush’s military interventions. Isn’t that what conservatives wanted Obama to do? I seem to remember a lot of hollering when there was any suggestion of our military leaving either country.

  • Joe

    Tom – I hope so. I have been trying to figure out what we are doing in Libya, and I can seem to make heads or tails of it. For better or for worse, I understood that in Iraq our goal was to regime change yielding a democratic gov’t. But with Libya, I am just confused.

    I am also surprised that Libya is the priority. The one indisputably good thing that came out of Iraq was that Gadafi gave up his weapons program. Seems like that should have (rightly) moved him a to a much lower spot on the list of problems to solve.

  • Joe

    Tom – I hope so. I have been trying to figure out what we are doing in Libya, and I can seem to make heads or tails of it. For better or for worse, I understood that in Iraq our goal was to regime change yielding a democratic gov’t. But with Libya, I am just confused.

    I am also surprised that Libya is the priority. The one indisputably good thing that came out of Iraq was that Gadafi gave up his weapons program. Seems like that should have (rightly) moved him a to a much lower spot on the list of problems to solve.

  • Joe

    - should be “can’t” in the second line.

  • Joe

    - should be “can’t” in the second line.

  • steve

    Joe, Libya is safe and popular. People see Syria as a quagmire and have little to no interest in places they’re hardly heard of like Bahrain and Yemen.

  • steve

    Joe, Libya is safe and popular. People see Syria as a quagmire and have little to no interest in places they’re hardly heard of like Bahrain and Yemen.

  • DonS

    All right, Tom @ 14. We’ll await your criticisms tomorrow, after that enlightening speech. :-)

  • DonS

    All right, Tom @ 14. We’ll await your criticisms tomorrow, after that enlightening speech. :-)

  • DonS

    Tom @ 14: Oh, and as to your P.S., I haven’t been particularly critical of Obama’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, I don’t recall saying much of anything at all on those subjects, other than maybe criticizing the notion of setting a date certain for withdrawal, which I think is a dumb thing to do.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 14: Oh, and as to your P.S., I haven’t been particularly critical of Obama’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, I don’t recall saying much of anything at all on those subjects, other than maybe criticizing the notion of setting a date certain for withdrawal, which I think is a dumb thing to do.

  • Kirk

    @ 11

    Don, if it makes you feel better, I am completely opposed to our military intervention in Libya. We have no objective and not clearly defined policy goals. We risk further destabilization of the region, extending down into sub-Saharan Africa and don’t serve to gain very much from the conflict. Obama’s decision to attack Libya without congressional approval is in clear opposition to his previously stated principles, as well as to good sense.

  • Kirk

    @ 11

    Don, if it makes you feel better, I am completely opposed to our military intervention in Libya. We have no objective and not clearly defined policy goals. We risk further destabilization of the region, extending down into sub-Saharan Africa and don’t serve to gain very much from the conflict. Obama’s decision to attack Libya without congressional approval is in clear opposition to his previously stated principles, as well as to good sense.

  • Kirk

    Porcell @8

    A. I was making a joke

    B. Iran-Contra had extremely little to do with the fall of the Soviet empire. And Regan hardly “stumbled” into it. The program began and ended during his second term. That’s not inherited, and it certainly wasn’t done by mistake. But, on top of that, there was the proxy war in Afghanistan that ended up supplying weapons to Al-Queda, training of Guatemalan and Honduran troops implicated in genocide, and funding Noriega in Panama. Support for dictators and murderers is nothing new for American presidents. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    And, to be fair to the 7 other presidents that served during the Cold War, Reagan had a part in defeating the Soviet Empire, but did not himself end the Cold War. He pushed his advantage (and pushed it well) and was lucky enough to be there when the walls came tumbling down, but it wasn’t single handed, by any means.

    C.) You want Obama to take the lead on the operation in Libya, but simultaneously seem opposed to the operation in Libya. I know that you’re something of a neo-con, but surely it would be unwise for the US to take the helm of an ill-advised military conflict, even if it temporarily strengthens our hegemony.

  • Kirk

    Porcell @8

    A. I was making a joke

    B. Iran-Contra had extremely little to do with the fall of the Soviet empire. And Regan hardly “stumbled” into it. The program began and ended during his second term. That’s not inherited, and it certainly wasn’t done by mistake. But, on top of that, there was the proxy war in Afghanistan that ended up supplying weapons to Al-Queda, training of Guatemalan and Honduran troops implicated in genocide, and funding Noriega in Panama. Support for dictators and murderers is nothing new for American presidents. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    And, to be fair to the 7 other presidents that served during the Cold War, Reagan had a part in defeating the Soviet Empire, but did not himself end the Cold War. He pushed his advantage (and pushed it well) and was lucky enough to be there when the walls came tumbling down, but it wasn’t single handed, by any means.

    C.) You want Obama to take the lead on the operation in Libya, but simultaneously seem opposed to the operation in Libya. I know that you’re something of a neo-con, but surely it would be unwise for the US to take the helm of an ill-advised military conflict, even if it temporarily strengthens our hegemony.

  • DonS

    Thank you, Kirk @ 20. Yes, it does make me feel better. This criticism by his supporters needs to be clearly articulated to Obama, as he hasn’t a clue what he is doing right now, that I can see, concerning a cogent foreign policy.

    I have no desire to intervene in your discussion with Porcell, except that I will point out that the Berlin Wall did not come down until 1989, during the Bush I administration. So, Reagan actually was not the president when “the walls came tumbling down”.

  • DonS

    Thank you, Kirk @ 20. Yes, it does make me feel better. This criticism by his supporters needs to be clearly articulated to Obama, as he hasn’t a clue what he is doing right now, that I can see, concerning a cogent foreign policy.

    I have no desire to intervene in your discussion with Porcell, except that I will point out that the Berlin Wall did not come down until 1989, during the Bush I administration. So, Reagan actually was not the president when “the walls came tumbling down”.

  • Kirk

    @22 Can I get away with saying the walls were metaphorical?

  • Kirk

    @22 Can I get away with saying the walls were metaphorical?

  • Tom Hering

    DonS @ 18, I’ve already heard a preview of tonight’s speech. Looks like the argument will be that intervention prevented a humanitarian crisis. Now, I don’t know how a government fighting back against violent overthrow qualifies as a humanitarian crisis. Unless that government is using rebellion as an excuse to wipe out an unwanted segment of the population (as in ethnic cleansing). But I haven’t seen any evidence that’s been the case in Libya. (Then too, we now have to be skeptical about all evidence. It may be manufactured, as in the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion.)

    DonS @ 19, when did you become representative of all conservatives? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    DonS @ 18, I’ve already heard a preview of tonight’s speech. Looks like the argument will be that intervention prevented a humanitarian crisis. Now, I don’t know how a government fighting back against violent overthrow qualifies as a humanitarian crisis. Unless that government is using rebellion as an excuse to wipe out an unwanted segment of the population (as in ethnic cleansing). But I haven’t seen any evidence that’s been the case in Libya. (Then too, we now have to be skeptical about all evidence. It may be manufactured, as in the Gulf War and the Iraq invasion.)

    DonS @ 19, when did you become representative of all conservatives? :-D

  • DonS

    Fair enough, Tom :-) . I speak only for myself, and can barely handle that.

  • DonS

    Fair enough, Tom :-) . I speak only for myself, and can barely handle that.

  • Porcell

    Kirk, I agree that, except for Carter, from Truman through Reagan other presidents contributed to winning the Cold War. However, Reagan’s final effort was crucial to this success. Sure, he made a mistake with Iran-Contra, though your supposed joke that Obama emulated him is thin porridge.

  • Porcell

    Kirk, I agree that, except for Carter, from Truman through Reagan other presidents contributed to winning the Cold War. However, Reagan’s final effort was crucial to this success. Sure, he made a mistake with Iran-Contra, though your supposed joke that Obama emulated him is thin porridge.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, I think the President made his case with a very well-crafted speech. Still, I remain unconvinced that what’s happening in Libya is really a “fight for freedom” (the marketing approach our Presidents use to sell all our wars of late). And I can’t help but feel that fighting three wars is fighting three wars too many.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, I think the President made his case with a very well-crafted speech. Still, I remain unconvinced that what’s happening in Libya is really a “fight for freedom” (the marketing approach our Presidents use to sell all our wars of late). And I can’t help but feel that fighting three wars is fighting three wars too many.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X