North Korea declares war (again) on South KoreaFollow

I wasn't defending Obama. I was laughing at your lack of knowledge of world history and lamprey-like attachment to stock GOP talking points ("Oh no! French!")

I don't think Obama's actions in Libya need any defense. I do find a bit of mirth in the fact that you apparently believe the Republicans got totally rolled by Obama and allowed him to wage this incredibly illegal war with barely any pushback. Man, you ever need a bunch of pussies to use as an example, you don't need the French. You have Boehner & Co.

Given that you're reaching back to the Napoleonic wars to find the last time the French were considered a significant aggressive military power to make your point, I might suggest that you're exhibiting that behavior far more than I.



I'm sure you don't. And the sheer size of that moving target is part of my point. Somehow the talking heads on the Left went from "no illegal wars", to "it's ok, he can initiate military action without having to ask congress for 60 days" (despite that actually not being true in the absence of a direct threat to the US itself, but whatever), to "did the time pass and he never bothered to get authorization, we'll it's not that big a deal anyway". Really? I love how the Left's principles kinda move all over the map apparently based solely on who they're applying them to.

Which basically means "no principles".



No. I'm pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of liberals yelling and screaming about waging illegal warfare suddenly falling silent when Obama does it, not just in a "if you squint and look at it from the right angle, you can say he violated the war powers act", but by just plain ignoring the act entirely. That you feel the need to turn this into some kind of "Republicans got rolled" riff only underscores the need you have to dismiss what Obama did and focus attention any something, anything, else. It shows me that you know that what he did violated everything he claimed he stood for, and everything that the liberal rhetoric had been arguing about for years, but your loyalty to your "side" can't allow you to admit it. So you perpetuate the lie.

Bizarre behavior. And a bit scary. What would Obama have to do before you'd say "He was wrong to do that"? I'm honestly curious.


Oh. Which, in case you're paying attention, is why I'm quite sure that while everyone insists that "of course Obama would be strong if we were attacked", if we were attacked and Obama did nothing, most of you would either stay silent, or loudly insist that he was actually being brave or something for not fighting back. The pattern of the rank and file liberal utterly ignoring what their own leaders do is pretty well established. Simply "being a liberal leader" appears to be all that matters. You will silently accept anything he does, or will come up with an excuse for why what he did really was ok after all. Cause that's what liberals do. As I said, no principles.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 6:32pm by gbaji

Pointing out French aggressive military actions from 200+ years ago isn't terribly relevant to a discussion of the relative level of French military aggressiveness *today*. Yet, that's exactly where two different posters went when I pointed out that Obama had to be dragged into a war by the French. Not 200 years ago, but just a few years ago.

You don't find that a bit odd?



Follow the conversation if you're confused.

Edited, Apr 9th 2013 6:37pm by gbaji

The French intervene all the time. They've been intervening in the ivory coast for decades. Let's face it, you're laughing at the French because of WWII and maybe the second gulf war. Maybe they should laugh at the idea the States is a militaristic nation because Eisenhower didn't have the balls to support their occupation of the Suez?

If the US were led into war by the Swiss, that'd be funny.

I'm sure you don't. And the sheer size of that moving target is part of my point. Somehow the talking heads on the Left went from "no illegal wars", to "it's ok, he can initiate military action without having to ask congress for 60 days" (despite that actually not being true in the absence of a direct threat to the US itself, but whatever), to "did the time pass and he never bothered to get authorization, we'll it's not that big a deal anyway". Really? I love how the Left's principles kinda move all over the map apparently based solely on who they're applying them to.

Which basically means "no principles".

Yes, correct, no principles. Welcome to adulthood. Neither political party cares about principle. They care about power. If power means selling out their core values and killing their own family, they'll do it instantly. Also: Santa..not real. If you want to discuss lack of principle, however, maybe starting with the GOP opinion about executive power and wildly it fluctuates might be a good place to start. There are ideological as well legal arguments for broad expansion of executive power, none of them come from the left. (Which, YES, makes your point which I conceded at the start of the paragraph, the problem is you whining about the "hypocrisy" of it makes you a hypocrite by definition.)

That said, "no principles" would probably sting a lot more had I personally (rather the the nebulous "Left") ever accused Bush of waging an illegal war. A poorly conceived, poorly executed war that was to the detriment of the US on several fronts, sure. Illegal? Not so much.

There's a fairly good argument that legally the executive branch can do whatever it wants with the military, checked no by congresses power to declare war, but by their ability to halt funding for one.

I'm not much of an anti-war guy, either, but it's a fair point that some people assumed Obama would actually close Guantanamo bay's detention center, which it should have been immediately obvious was a silly fantasy. On the other hand it's equally fair to point out that some people thought "no child left behind" was a program to help poor kids.

Sounds like they're taking their cues from Fred Phelps.

Wouldn't we all.

Yes. The posters from the peanut gallery all insisting that he had 60 days to get approval, so there was no problem with what he was doing, and then... silence. Which is what I was talking about. You are fine with looking the other way when it's your "side" doing something. If your normal response to such things is to not bother posting or creating a thread, that would be one thing. The hypocrisy is the same group of people who would jump up and down in anger if a Republican did what Obama did, just ignoring it in this case.



I'm sorry. Did the Dems pass some kind of resolution declaring Iraq an illegal war? I'm curious what lack of official Republican response in this case means "you can't talk about this, cause the GOP didn't make it an issue", but the same lack on the part of the Dems is no reason at all to hinder years and years of similar whining and crying by the left. You're seriously trying to use that as an argument?

On the other hand, I think I'd say it's because the liberals are more willing to compromise with the other side than the conservatives. If a Republican shows an ounce of compromise... they are vilified by the people who used to support them.

Ah, well, I guess I can't answer for vague references to "the posters". I personally noted how McCain and other Senate Republicans said they wouldn't make any moves if the sixty day mark passed as they didn't see any problem with it.

No, should they have? Again: I did not view Iraq as an illegal war. Therefore, I am not at all worried about whether anyone "passed a resolution" or whatever else. In fact, I'd rather they didn't since -- again -- I didn't view it as illegal. If someone else did, I'm sorry both for their error in thinking so and your apparent angst that this occurred. Since you're under the impression that "The Left" is some singular mind, let me speak on behalf of everyone and unconditionally apologize for anyone and everyone who said Iraq was "illegal". They were wrong. Do you feel better now?

An "argument"? No, of course not. I'm not arguing anything, really. I'm laughing at you for your massive blind spot between throwing a hissy fit declaring the actions in Libya "illegal" and the complete lack of resistance from the GOP when it came to those same actions.

Do you think Libya was "illegal"?
Do you think the GOP viewed those actions as illegal?
If so, can you explain why they did nothing beyond some lip service from the fringes to do anything at all about a president illegally waging combat?

So by your own definition you're the most liberally of liberals on these boards.