Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

A Very Liberal Intervention
  by Ross Douthat, NYWTimes


In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Qaddafi, the Obama administration
has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, Obama seemed determined
to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit
America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral,
least cowboyish fashion imaginable.    Well put.

That much his administration has achieved.
In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention.
It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed
by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon.
Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated
not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure
from the Bush bastards' more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive
references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House
has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush
bastards either steamrolled or ignored

In other words, he's doing it right

As I said in the upcoming BCR 169, it's very possible that Obama, like Clinton, might get thru his war
without losing any American soldiers, sailors or pilots - and that will piss off the GOP - BIG time.

When Clinton clobbered Milosombitch in the nineties, the lack of dead soliders caused the vulgar Pigboy
to say, "If no lives were lost, was it worth going to war?" or some such horseshit, as tho "victory"
was defined by the number of new graves dug at Arlington.

Clinton lost no soldiers (I don't count Bush's Somalia debacle) and they screamed "amateur" at him.
Bush lost 5,000 or so, "but he knew what he was doing."

Now another
"amateur" might tie Clinton with zero soldiers lost
and what will the Republican bastards say about him?

I don't know, but it'll probably include the word "nigger."

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart

Privacy Policy
. .