DC Trawler

Remember when bombing Muslim countries was a BAD thing?

Font Size:

From today’s DC Morning e-mail, which was guest-written by some jerk:

Which famous golfer and part-time Commander-in-Chief said the following, back in 2002? “Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” The answer is: OMIGOSH LOOK OVER THERE WHAT THE HECK IS THAT??? [runs away]


The President of the United States develops a taste for nation-building, after promising otherwise during his campaign. The opposition party is all over him for it. No, Marty McFly did not kidnap you and take you back to 2003. Everything old is… well, it’s still old. Except this time we’ve got The One in charge. Yay? CNN’s Ed Henry reports from Rio de Janeiro: “As the massive bombardment of Libya continued for a second day over 5,000 miles away from here, President Obama delivered a speech that did not mention any specifics about the U.S. role in the military action despite Republican demands for him to better define the mission. ‘We’ve seen the people of Libya take a courageous stand against a regime determined to brutalize its own citizens,’ Obama said in a 25-minute address that only briefly mentioned Libya…” Meanwhile, John Boehner is all like: “Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.” Jon Bon Jovi was right, folks: It’s all the same. Only the names’ll change.

Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner writes:

Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama’s entry into Libya’s civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama’s announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama’s record of deception.

Other than that, though, it’s pretty good!

Check out the PJ Tatler for the reaction from some of the people who actually trusted Obama. To their credit, they’re not trying to pretend he hasn’t betrayed them. They’re not tying themselves into knots and insisting that somehow this time it’s different. They got played, and they admit it.

Although as Ed Driscoll points out: “But where are they going to go?”