Somehow The Possible Success In Libya Is Bad For The GOP
It’s an interesting dichotomy: there was bipartisan condemnation against the actions against Libya, for a multitude of reasons, such as wondering why we were getting involved when it had no national security implications, that it seemed to be a means to keep oil flowing into France and Britain from Libya, and Obama’s failure to consult with Congress and get some sort of resolution, among others. Interestingly, the same media which was quite often talking about war against Libya, er, excuse me, kinetic military actions, as being a Bad Thing and blasting Obama for leading from behind are now trying to give him every bit of kudos while attempting to smear the GOP. Case in point from one of the Politico’s biggest Obama cheerleaders, Alexander Burns: On Libya Revolution, GOP candidates duck and cover
It’s the 2012 Republican field’s first real moment in the foreign policy spotlight – the dilemma over how to respond to the apparent success of President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya.
So far, the strategy for nearly all the candidates is: don’t.
There’s an important word in there: apparent. The accompanying picture for the story has the caption “While they may be tired of foreign wars, Americans may welcome a positive outcome in Libya”. The thing is, we first must have one. Nothing is settled in Libya. The rebels haven’t yet won. We don’t know what will happen if they do. Al Qaeda is involved with the rebels, to what extent is unknown. Their draft constitution says that Sharia law is the “principle source of legislation.”
For the most part, the GOP has offered only a slow and muted response to the collapse of Muammar Qadhafi’s regime, which seems to spell the end of a dictator who has plagued the United States for decades.
Where’s the Democrat response? We aren’t hearing about that, are we? Probably because quite a few Democrats were dead set against getting involved in yet another war of choice, to use their phraseology. Remember, 10 Congressman, including Democrats John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Michael Capuano, are suing the Obama admin. for going to war without Congressional approval.
Ben Smith calls this a victory for leading from behind. Over at the NY Times, the columnists haven’t gotten involved as of yet to crow a bit about Obama abdicating America’s role, but, Mark Landler finds time to say that For Obama, A Moment To Savor, If Briefly. Remember, though, back during and before the “days, not weeks” comment (which became 5 months), much of the media was portraying Obama as a ditherer, as a “Where’s Waldo” president. They took him to task for not bothering to talk to the American people, and instead sending Sec. Of State Clinton to speak on Libya. The Obama admin. told us this wasn’t really a war-war, just some random launching of courtesy bombs.
I guess when a maybe possibly sorta win by Obama acting as the third string quarterback is about all he has to hang his hat on, the media needs to give him some props. Which is funny for a guy who constantly whined about not getting the US involved in wars of choice. But, since his domestic policy has been a complete and utter disaster….
(Just for reference, I actually supported intervention in Libya through air power means. Of course, that was before I knew that hard core Islamists were involved with the rebels. Which has nothing to do with Obama)
Certain states hold extensive political clout since their large population allots them a high number of Electoral College votes.: California
Well, that’s CNN’s headline, to a degree, but not what she actually said. Which is good for Obama, because, really,
It’s a veritable cornucopia of Obamagandistic musical agitprop. You’ll recall the militaristic, fascist-styled Obama youth corps from 2008 where a