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

I disagree on Libya by Scott

Hi Bart:
You wrote in response to Ted Rall:
> Hey Ted, did you see this story?

> Helpless player's wife attacked    
> When innocent people are attacked by violent aggressors,
> stepping in to defend them is NOT the crime you're painting it to be.
> No soldiers are dying and we're saving Libyan lives - so why complain?

> If that was your wife and kids, wouldn't you want someone as "violent" as Obama to help?
The problem with your line of reasoning is that you substitute individuals for countries. 

I use parables to teach - like Jesus.

There is nothing wrong with an individual or law-enforcement
coming to the aid of another who is suffering a violent attack. 

I agree.

However, there is something dreadfully wrong with a president, who is bound
by Constitutional (Article 1, Sec 8) and statutory (WPA) restraints from doing
the same as it engages the entire country in an action that citizens may or may not
support which renders any democratic opinion or rule of law on the matter irrelevant.

I disagree.

If a man is beating up a girl at a Pizza Hut or a dictator threatens to slaughter
his unarmed people "with no mercy" one can either come to the aid of the helpless
or one can go to the UN and dither for months on end while thousands or tens of
thousands of innocent people are murdered as their cities are torched.

If you're a "dithering" kind of guy, I understand but I disagree.
If it was your wife, would you want the rescuer to "respect the rule of law?"
Or would you like to see your wife again, healthy and unharmed?

Dont yuo remember, as a kid, they talked about the "No swimming" sign?
That applies in REGULAR circumstances, not when your child falls in the water.

 Additionally, if this is allowed to stand, any future president can and will use the example
of Libya as a justification for taking the country to war at any time, any  place, for any reason.

No two circumstances are the same.
If some brute looks at your wife "funny" at a Pizza Hut,
there's no need to rush in and commit violence in the name of saving her.

I think, as usually happens, we're talking about different things.

We can argue the abstract use of force like Smurfs (till we're blue in the face)
but when you hear a woman screaming. "Please, somebody help me!"
are you really going to drive to the law library and research rescue protocol?

I think that's what Obama wanted to do with Libya and Hillary set him straight.
I also believe that's why Gates resigned - he didn't like losing that tug-o-war to Hillary.

And it's possible Obama went with Hillary on this to prevent her from
jumping ship and primary-ing his ass next year - it's possible.

Are you sure you want the likes of Sarah Palin to have the power of a queen?

If history has taught us anything, it's that a US president is going to do what he's going to do.
Bush had no right to steal Iraq's oil - we all know that.
But that's different from stopping a massive, country-wide extermination.

That's why we should only elect sane people, not cowboys with oil hardons.
This is not to say that the US cannot intervene in Libya, but there ought to at least
be a debate about it to weigh the relative national interests, justice of the cause, and goals. 

But at what price?
Would you let 1,000 people die while we debated?
Would you let 10,000 people die while we debated?
Would you let 50,000 people die while we debated?

Besides, today's GOP would let those people die just because they're assholes.

It is worth noting that the president's original promise of "days, not weeks" is already
a distant memory and the mission has escalated from that of establishing a no-fly zone
to regime change.  Mission creep anyone?
Respectfully Yours,
 Scott in Arizonastan

If we were tabulating the Libyan body count every day, you might have a point.
Our boys are off-shore where Gadaffy Duck can't harm them.

Plus, it also sends the signal to other dictators:
If you attack, or threaten to attack peaceful demonstrators,
the US military just might kick your about-to-be-out-of-power ass.

That's saving lives without firing a shot.
I'd call that a win-win.

Remember, Obama didn't start the freedom dominoes falling in the Middle East.
Facebook did that and what would history say about Obama if he failed to help
a dozen countries struggling for their freedom for the very furst time?

Class dismissed.
God help me, I love to argue!



Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to


Privacy Policy
. .