Monica Crowley Laughs at Eleanor Clift's Foolish Comment About Obama, Reagan and Libya
Eleanor Clift on this weekend's "McLaughlin Group" made a truly absurd comment about the disparate ways Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan handled Libya during their respective presidencies that left Monica Crowley in stitches.
After Clift mocked Reagan by saying, "You don’t need leadership that goes into a Muslim country all alone," Monica laughed loudly before replying, "American presidential leadership, Eleanor, never goes out of style" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MONICA CROWLEY, WASHINGTON TIMES: By the way, we've done these no-fly zones over the former Yugoslavia, over Iraq. It doesn't necessarily prevent the kind of humanitarian slaughter that we're trying to prevent here. Look, two differences between Reagan and Obama. Number one, American leadership. Reagan didn't wait for any kind of international stamp of approval to move. And number two, with Reagan, there was a clear mission, a clear strategy, and clear American presidential leadership.
ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: That was before 9/11.
CROWLEY: We've had none of that in this case.
CLIFT: That was before 9/11, before George W. Bush…
CROWLEY: It doesn't matter! You know what, you can argue, Eleanor, that post-9/11 you need it even more.
PAT BUCHANAN: Let me move in.
CLIFT: You don't need leadership that goes into a Muslim country all alone.
CROWLEY: You don't need leadership! [Laughs loudly]
CLIFT: You don't need leadership – excuse me – I want to finish.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Alright, quickly.
CLIFT: You don’t need leadership that goes into a Muslim country all alone. This was an international…
CROWLEY: American presidential leadership, Eleanor, never goes out of style.
CLIFT: coalition in a post-9/11 age and a post-George W. Bush era, where we created a war in Iraq that was unnecessary…
CROWLEY: Oh, here you go.
CLIFT: …and left in utter…
CROWLEY: That has nothing to do with it, Eleanor.
CLIFT: It has plenty, it has more to do with it than Reagan 25 years ago.
For those keeping score at home, leadership in Clift's view is a president taking orders from the United Nations and starting a war with a country that didn't attack America and doing so without Congressional support.
By contrast, it's not leadership when a president does a quick military response on a dictator that just killed innocent Americans in a German discotheque.
As I've been saying for years, it takes a lot of rationalizations to be a liberal these days.
Further supporting this assertion has been all these perpetually dovish liberal media members like Clift - folks that have been bashing Bush over Iraq and Afghanistan for years - getting behind Obama's attack on Libya.
Really makes you wonder how any of these people can look themselves in the mirror when they brush their teeth.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Dumbfounded.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:36pm.
Do these people really believe we resumed hostilities against Saddam's Iraq "all alone". Really? Have they told their own lies so many times that they actually believe them?
Maybe to them, if they do not approve then anyone else doing anything constitutes "all alone".
It is really quite ridiculous.
That's what their myth holds
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:25pm.
It's important for Democrats -- and Clift is one of their mouthpieces -- to insist that Bush Jr. went into Irag (a) alone and (b) without consulting the Congress.
This myth is absolutely essential to their defense of Obama's Operation Odessey Dawn.
What's perhaps most ludicrous is their description of Obama's passivity as "leadership." Days into the intervention it was perfectly obvious that not only wasn't he leading, but that he was looking for the earliest opportunity to wash his hands of the whole thing.
Our 'national' community organizer is demonstrating that he lacks the skills, stamina, and confidence to be a leader.
I just hope he doesn't get our people killed over this.
I'll Bet...
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:43am.
...the Brits, Canadians, Saudis, etc., appreciate being seen as nobodies by the American left.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Reagan's address to the nation, on Libya, 1986
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:41pm.
Here's the video:
President Ronald Reagan - Address to the Nation on the United States Air Strike Against Libya, April 14, 1986
Hmm - must have missed Obama's address to the nation.
(;~> gary
Obama appears to be waiting,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:19pm.
Obama appears to be waiting, to make a statement, for some clear evidence as to how this is going to shake out.
Oh, wait! He has "scheduled a speech" on the issue for Monday!
Here's what I guess we can hope to hear:
- U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi's forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.
What happened to days, weeks, NOT months, as Dear Leader said??
BTW has anyone EVER heard more frequent use of the phrase "international," "multilateral" and "coalition" than these mouthpieces are throwing about?
I don't look for some kind of
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:05pm.
I don't look for some kind of outstanding speech. VCU has just beaten his pick of Kansas to win the NCAA basketball tournament. He has had a big let down.
Obama Speech - perhaps he'll..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:36pm.
.. well, perhaps he'll skip the speech and stay home. Whoaaa there - darn; home is the white house.
Yikes - that's scary.
(;~> gary
gary
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:22pm.
He'll be making the speech from the National Defense University. I have not idea where that is. Never heard of it.
Presidential Speeches
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:12am.
Rush played a montage of Presidential speeches announcing the United States beginning serious military and/or war action starting with FDR's "a date which will live in infamy" speech to Congress of December 8, 1941.
When the montage got to the current President and his speech on Libya, the contrast was striking. Compared to his predecessors, this President started by saying "Hellos" to those gathered for the speech much like how he made "shout-outs" before addressing the shootings on the army base back in 2009!
It was a clear demonstration that this President does not have a clue about leadership, that he is the commander in chief and has ordered our military into harm's way. Compare that to his immediate predecessor who despite the criticisms leveled against him, understood and felt the gravity of his decisions when committing the American military to action that would put many at serious risk.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Is it me or . .
Submitted by Lakewood Ed on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 2:46pm.
. . . does she get more crone-ish each week?
HUH?????
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:02pm.
Hold on, so after 9/11 -- the biggest attack on our soil of foreign **Muslim invaders** from the Middle East -- we need to stop having a clear mission, strategy, and clear American leadership??? And we need to be more "delicate" about going into Muslim countries?????
Freakin' stupid, enemy-within, defeatist, Muslim-loving, rock-dumb liberals.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
My thoughts
Submitted by Snappy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:13pm.
My thoughts exactly...appearantly now post 9/11 we are not allowed to go into Muslim countries without UN approval? This truly is another WTF moment from the left.
Congressional consent is
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:05pm.
Congressional consent is something that so far, I'm not overly worried about. If the scope remains enforcing a NFZ, then I'm okay with how it was initiated.
That being said- I'm against the operation en toto on the grounds that we apparently have no idea who it is that we're supporting. This was true in Egypt as it appears the MB is taking hold of that country and their relatively strong military, and is likely to be true in Libya as well. We're also choosing to remain silent on Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, and will likely quietly support the government of Saudi Arabia. We're all over the map on this and with every new venture, we look less and less credible as a world power. (Yemen, by the way, looks to be a real problem for us and we've completely ignored it.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'd like explained is why we keep hearing two particular terms from the media- all the media, since I heard Fox use them earlier today: "Pro-democracy rebels" and "key oil port towns".
No one has yet shown the uprising that began in Tunisia and has spread throughout the Middle East to be remotely "pro-democracy". John McCain, today indicated that we should stand for any people who wish to have a greater say in the control of their own lives. In general, fine -but that didn't work out so good in Lebanon, now did it? I think we should be concerned about threats to the US first and foremost, and in some cases, let sovereign countries handle their own disputes; which we seem to be doing right now regarding Syria et al. Certainly the MB in Egypt is not pro-democracy and it's doubtful that the -what are they? Civilians? Rebels? No one can be sure any longer- in Libya wishes anything remotely "democratic" in the aftermath of their uprising.
The other term: "key oil port towns" has been widely used to describe territory along Libya's northern coastline. It is being reported today that the rebels seized Brega and then Ras Lanouf, two key oil ports. "Key" to what? Was Qaddafi withholding the lifeblood of his country from export two months ago and that forced this uprising? Will rebel control increase output? Does capturing these cities calm the oil speculators and help reduce the cost at the pump? Are windmills springing up? What? It sounds to me like the media is just making stuff up as they go along to try and sensationalize this drama.
The whole frickin thing is gonna go fubar any day now. Watch for Gates to resign, Obomba to go back on television announcing the complete withdraw of all US kinetic military assets (and maybe suggest a beer summit), and for Qaddafi to reassert his power with the heads of many, many Libyan innocents. Why innocents? Because the "rebels" will head back to Iran as soon as we're seen as backtracking.
This country could not have elected a more dysfunctional executive branch.
BK, I think it is safe to
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:16pm.
BK,
I think it is safe to say that this Administration will go down in history as one of if not the most inept ever. May I suggest that they are practicing SNAFU diplomacy?
It is not only that the left hand does not know what the right is doing but the left leg is trying to go a different route than the right. They are truly clueless.
Nov 2012 cannot come soon enough so we can throw them on the dustbin of history.
Scuba, you wrote: "I think it is safe to say that this
Submitted by virginia republican on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:09pm.
Administration will go down in history as one of if not the most inept ever. ". Really? Depends on who's writing the history. Many of these brain dead libs still think Carter was a good, if not great President. They'll think Odumbo was great, just as he is great now in their mini-brains, despite the ongoing disasters, blunders and missteps the rest of us all see. Actually, let me amend that. We don't see it if all we rely on is the regime's version of Pravda, the MSM.
I am not OK with this operation ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:20pm.
Obama's motives for doing this are AFU. He is attacking Libya to protect anti-Gadhafi rebels who are themselves aligned with Al Qaeda.
Gadhafi is our enemy, no doubt, but so is Al Qaeda, and by extension, those in league with Al Qaeda in Libya.
Show me how attacking Gadhafi under these circumstances is a net gain for US foreign policy and the security and advancement of our society and I'll support the action. I have no problems offing Gadhafi and anyone else who was a party to the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, but not if Al Qaeda is going to take his place.
Inept is putting it mildly.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:03pm.
Inept is putting it mildly. Incompetent is more like it.
I agree. This man may go down in history, not as the man who lost Egypt, but as the man who lost the entire Middle East.
Does he not even have intelligence sources? Why is it that he assumes that any group that is opposing its government or a dictator wants democracy?
The Muslim Brotherhood is now rising in Egypt and who knows who will take over when Ghadafy falls.
The one place where the anti-government uprising really did have a chance for democracy was Iran, and he blew that one.
This is all over the net, but here's one source: Weasel Zippers
Obama 2009:
the danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these [democratic] values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”
Obama 2011:
White House press secretary Jay Carney says President Obama spoke to the Turkish Prime Minister and both “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.”
Motherbelt...we are reaping the whirlwind that
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:26pm.
was sown by Bush and the neocons during the past decade. They worked behind the scenes in Egypt with anti-Mubarek factions. They promoted the open elections in the Gaza and West Bank which put Hamas in power. The transitional forces which are sweeping through the Mid East will inevitably generate instability, uncertainty and problematic outcomes. It may also ultimately produce positive reforms and democratized societies. But revolutions can't always--if ever--be calibrated to ensure results perfectly congruent with our interests.
Jer
Wait
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:58pm.
This is Bush's fault? Are you serious? A guy setting himself on fire in Tunisia, which -excuse the pun- sparked this whole movement, is Bush's fault?
Wow.
It could be to his credit, bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:09pm.
Which if you had read my post carefully, should have been apparent.
Jer
jer - et al.. Bush and the results.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:43pm.
Well, I've said it before, and while it's not my original creation, it will go like this.
If everything works out rather well in the middle east here - some sort of stability evolves, without al Qaeda running the show - the national MSM will give credit to Obama. Notably, they will point to his speeches to the Islamic world early on in his administration.
If all hell breaks out (Glenn Beck's Caliphate view, perhaps), then this very same national media will blame it all on George W Bush for stirring the pot.
Jus saying..
(:~/ gary
Gary
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:07pm.
I believe if you review the coverage of the initial street demonstrations and anti-government rallies in Egypt--when the positive aspects of the movemnent and the 'flowering of democracy' angles were being emphasized--you will find that several lib commentators and MSM analysts were acknowledging the fact that it tended to validate the efforts and policies of the Bush administration. I think it was Ari Fleisher who, beaming with pride, said "we are all neocons now."
Jer
Jer.. not yet..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:27pm.
... in the end - the final analysis. And yes, I had caught some of those earlier comments. The national MSM will write history the way the want it written - our universities will follow suit.
It's a bit like Reagan and the changing of the guard in the USSR. Put a Democrat in Reagan's body and soul right here, and everyone in the world would be singing the tunes of diplomacy done by a leader. Reagan: The "60 Minutes" Interviews, 1975-1989. Skip to the 19 minute mark in the video.
History should simply be what it is.
(:~> gary
Gary...what am I suppose to take away from that interview
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:16pm.
other than:
1. It was probably the most softball interview Mike Wallace has ever conducted in his entire career
2. Wallace points out that the Reagans were the most popular first couple upon leaving the White House in a long, long time.
3. Listening to the Gipper reminds me why he is my favorite President in my lifetime.
Jer
Ah, don't give me that
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:51pm.
Ah, don't give me that condescending crap Jer- you made one minor comment that things could work out for the better among "reaping the whirlwind", "Bush and the neocons" and "inevitably generate [...] problematic outcomes."
I don't have to read your ridiculous comment more carefully to get the gist of your asinine assertion. Keep your smugness in check.
If you don't want condescending "crap", bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:24pm.
then don't invite it by posting crap which distorts my words. The revolutionary roots in the Mid East are far deeper--and the triggering events much more complex--than some guy setting himself on fire in Tunisia.
But, by all means, keep clinging to that naive and myopic view if you wish to continue embarrassing yourself. And I don't care to be lectured by someone who has told me in the past to get f*cked.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:30pm.
Aw, are you're feelings still hurt from that? You're such a child.
Of course the Arab Spring has been brewing for years. But you explicitly suggested that it was the Bush administration that stirred the current fires, and that it was likely to turn out badly. I agree to the later, but the rest of your comment was pure liberal drivel. And then when called on it, you jaunt off into some high and mighty -oh, you should read more carefully, piss-ant, that's not exactly how I said it- garbage. You're like a 13 year old girl.
For some reason, you seem to think you retain some intellectual superiority over me because I told you to go f* yourself many many months ago. Well guess what buddy? You're sorely wrong on that assumption. I said that because your silly a** deserved it at the time. And you're treading in that same territory now. Think what you want about me, I could care less. Your false bravado is surpassed only by ability to hold a grudge.
And I don't care who you wish to be lectured by -or not; get a tissue. Then get bent.
bkeyser...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:41pm.
Then you obviously don't remember why you posted the expletive, bkeyser--because it was completely unprovoked. If you think otherwise, then let's hear the explanation. It will prove you are one of the most thin-skinned, immature posters at NB.
...as was also illustrated by your rude, arrogant and juvenile comment to me on the occasion of my complimenting Brent Bozell for his defense of CNN.
But, please...I will eagerly await the explanation for your profanity. This should be good.
Jer
No actually, I don't remember
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:57pm.
because I'm not a teenage girl. I am capable of letting insignificant incidents in life pass, without searing them into my mind and seething about them for eternity. I do have a question though- was my comment to you on the boards or in PM? As I said, I can't remember. Also, were there apologies afterward, or no? I do know this however: there's not another incident of this nature from my keyboard, so it's obvious from more than 2-1/2 years of membership here that I'm not prone to such attacks. That's why I say that you obviously deserved it at the time. Additionally, it's not as though I'm some kind of Jer-nemesis; we've had a number of conversations during that time and certainly most have been cordial. So you're willingness to hold a grudge over one incident, and then reminding me of it every time you get your feelings hurt by something else I say, seems to be your juvenile arrogance, not mine.
So, sorry, no explanation for either of my most outrageous transgressions and I can only offer my sincere and utmost regret for upsetting your delicate sensibilities. I'll plant a tree in your name.
Sheesh.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:31pm.
A weeping willow, no doubt. :-)
But I can assure you in neither case were your posts justified. And the fact that they were so out of character made the incidents all the more incomprehensible. All I had ever done--other than commit the crime of being politically left of center--was repeatedly compliment your photoshop art productions--even though they invariably lampoon liberals.
There was a very tepid apology for the first instance, none for the second.
Anyway, moving on.
Jer
I got the same impression from your post as bk, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:44pm.
and while I admit that I tend to expect a liberal slant from you, regardless, the post did seem to point an accusation at Bush rather than a compliment.
MD
Well thank you, Matthew, for weighing in
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:25pm.
once again with your thoroughly balanced, unbiased opinion.
Of course my post was neither intended to be, nor did I ever claim it to be, completely complimentary to Bush. It was a reply to yet another in motherbelt's current series of essays, the recurring theme of which is some variation of "Obama: The Inept Boob Who Lost The Entire Mid East".
I simply pointed out the indisputable fact that the Bush administration played an underlying role--which they freely admit--in the drama now taking place in that part of the world. And the only thing predictable about the final outcome is its unpredictability. If the outcome--and it is multifaceted so maybe "outcomes" would be more appropriate--is largely positive, then Bush will deserve a great deal of credit. On the other hand, if the end results are generally negative, it is reasonable to hold him partially accountable.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:44pm.
"once again with your thoroughly balanced, unbiased opinion."
Conservatives at a conservative site need to be unbiased and "balanced"?
Why is it a broken record with you around here every day? And no, by that I don't mean a broken Mr. Shy record.
- Shy on the Wheels of Steel
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Point taken, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:52pm.
But I lost count after about the fiftieth time Matthew chimed in with his unsolicited opinion. And all fifty times it was "Jer's wrong...the other guy's right".
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:03am.
Opinions have to be solicited at NewsBusters?
As for the last part, odds are you were wrong 50 out of 50 times... with regards to these matters.
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
So, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:03am.
you post:
"A whirlwind sown by Bush - worked behind the scenes - promoted elections that put Hamas in power - transitional forces sweeping through the Middle East will inevitably generate instability, uncertainty, and problematic outcomes."
"It may (bold mine) also ultimately produce positive reforms and democratic societies."
You had more insinuations slanted against Bush than in praise of him.
"Worked behind the scenes" - as though skullduggery were afoot.
"-- that put Hamas in power --" - as if Bush personally sanctioned a terrorist group.
You are a good enough word smith to do a better job than that if you don't want to be questioned about the import of your post.
You threw it out there and then acted the injured party and accused bk of distorting your words.
I should be used to it by now, but I still find it odd that you not only felt it necessary to "count" the number of times "Matthew chimed in with his unsolicited opinion", but that you continue to act as though these conservative threads should only be used for comments when and where you, a liberal, feel it is appropriate.
As for Jer (a liberal) being wrong, and the other guy (a conservative) being right; what exactly were you expecting, a golf game gimme?
Get outta here.
MD
mb.. Clinton, as well..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:01pm.
Consider this comment from the former president, on July 22, 2003:
Oh, what's that doing there - I forgot. That's Bill Clinton on Larry King Live, just after he defended President Bush on the silly WMD deal, laying out what we should be focused on in the moment.
I still find it fascinating that the entire national media looked the other way, and never brought his view back up again.
(;~/ gary
NL,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:24pm.
It's kind of like the US jumping into WWII on December 08, 1941
-On the side of Japan.
This makes about as much sense as that would have.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Is Eleanor (and the LSM in
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:07pm.
Is Eleanor (and the LSM in general) suffering from Alzheimer's? President George W Bush had the support of at least 27 countries in the Iraq War.
I guess one has no choice except to laugh at Eleanor Clift whenever she speaks. Never has so much lunacy has come out of one persons mouth.
Scoob,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:19pm.
He also had a majority vote in congress, and he even went further by seeking and getting the blessings of the useless U.N.
Funny how many people continue to overlook that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Liberals and leadership?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:07pm.
What most liberals, and good old Eleanor, don't realize is that by it's very nature being a leader means you are out front ALL ALONE. If you're a successful leader, others will eventually follow you.
They mistake being a good committee chairman with being a leader. It's sort of like considering a "community organizer" a leadership position. Leaders don't much give a crap what others think if they consider the task is worth pursuing.
Reagan ended the "Libyan problem" in a matter of hours. MoMo got the message loud and clean, and he sat down and shut up for the next twenty years or so, for the most part. He never tested Reagan, but he started to probe following presidents and found them to be mostly wanting compared to Reagan. I'll guarantee he's not one bit impressed with the current 'War by Committee" chairman.
Reagan dealt with MoMo in less time than it takes Obbahblah to play a round of golf, and with better results. Leaders don't look around to see who might be following when the charge begins. They look around after they reach the objective to see if anyone else came along.
Donald Trump: The Word Hope Should Not Be Used When Talking Abou
Submitted by im41 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:27pm.
I agree with Trump. Why don’t he just go ahead and show it?
I know it's serious business, but...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:43pm.
I can't help but be a little amused while watching the same Republicans who were screaming "why the hell aren't we in Libya!" up to the moment of our intervention suddenly screaming "what the hell are we doing in Libya!" after we intervened.
Call me cynical but I believe there just might be a political angle to all of this frenzied posturing.
Jer
Are you referring to Monica
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:54pm.
Are you referring to Monica Crowley or some other Republican? Do elaborate.
Actually, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:59pm.
I was thinking of Gingrich.
Jer
Gingrich may be a Republican ....
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:42pm.
but not many conservatives take him seriously these days. I sure as H*ll don' t support him for public office after the positions he's taken over the last decade.
Ahhh, ok. Good ole
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:26pm.
Ahhh, ok.
Good ole Newt.
One of the few Republicans who I will not support in his run for President.
Puts away his material defending Monica Crowley.
You won't catch me criticizing Monica very often, Scuba...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:13pm.
I know it's not a good reason, but she's just too good-looking.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:19pm.
Jer,
I don't think there was a consistent right-wing view on this issue before the attack started. I heard/read conservatives for and against intervention. ns
I agree with you on that point, Noel...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:34pm.
and that was reflected on several threads here where the comments ran the gamut on policy options.
Jer
Iraq
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:08pm.
What was the predominant opinion on the left for 2 YEARS prior to 9/11/01 regarding the forced deposition of Saddam?
And after the invasion during the '04 election cycle?
Hypocrites are the same on both sides of the aisle.
It seems to me.....
Submitted by Evil_Skippy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:43pm.
"what the hell are we doing in Libya!"
Seems inaccurate as a statement......It could mean What is our strategy in Libya? or Why are we in Libya? I also think if I were to make such a statement, I could use the same tonal inflection in both cases so as to further confuse a listener.....So I am wondering if this is an accurate quote?
Just curious.
No Evil_Skippy
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:58pm.
it was not a direct quote. I was emphasizing and dramatizing the inconsistent positions and didn't realize anyone would think those were actual verbatim statements. I shouldn't have used quotation marks. However, italicizing requires that I switch to rich text and redo paragraphing, etc. I wish the previous formatting would return.
Jer
Well Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 2:54am.
The second question still stands, What are we doing?
What is the mission?
When is there not a political angle?
We Are The 53%
brushing teeth
Submitted by spepper on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:49pm.
"Really makes you wonder how any of these people can look themselves in the mirror when they brush their teeth."
And in Eleanor Clift's case, it must scare the crap out of the mirror each morning.........
Either the mirror
Submitted by virginia republican on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:13pm.
or the glass she puts her teeth in
Obama attacked Libya because
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 3:57pm.
Obama attacked Libya because saudi arabia ordered him to. Obama takes his orders from his islamic controller. He is working over time to impress his masters. Even in islam the black islamic man is considered a second class citizen so he is very eager to please.
Leadership
Submitted by Evil_Skippy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 4:06pm.
I too, have concerns about our efforts in Libya and who we are assisting. It seems to me there are alternatives to missles that could be alot more cost effective like Special Forces to organize, train and provide Leadership (oops dirty word) to truely pro-democracy rebels (read: Boots on the ground Intelligence). Hopefully we are reaching out to Libyan military personel and attempting to set the stage for a future democracy. (maybe not a lot of hope here, but hey a phone call is cheap and you never know who might like a position in a new government) But it looks like we cannot provide Leadership, coherency or strategy with this administration even at such a basic level.
With the amount of debt we have, we should be looking very hard at costs. Are the missles we fired to be replaced with new missles? Could we have accomplished the destruction of strategic sites with lower cost un-guided ordnance after achiving Air Superiority? etc. etc.....
Almost forgot...... "Since when does Walker speak for the people" E. Clift
Funniest thingI ever heard.
Leadership!??!
Submitted by fatboy on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:07pm.
I think the left's idea of leadership has been dramatically compromised w/ their blind lemming-like following of a true military leadership failure. Unreal!
Leadership? We don't need no stinkin' leadership.
Submitted by needle on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:45pm.
Eleanor Clift comes off pretty incoherent and even ungrammatical, but what impresses me is that she seems to be trying to make the [ridiculous] case that leadership is now irrelevant.
Yes, I am laughing with Monica, but what is sick about all of this is that apparently in their hearts the Left knows that Obama is a cardboard cutout of a leader, and accordingly they are spinning this mess – i.e., the mess they have placed the whole country in with their charlatan of a leader – by trying to argue that leadership is irrelevant. Another WTF moment brought to you by the Liberal media.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
TALK ABOUT KINETIC.........
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 5:17pm.
Eleanor (The kinetic one) Clift must be getting talking points from the White House sent directly to the fillings in her teeth. She has been on a different planet for some time now. Too many anal probes by aliens when she was beamed up to the mothership. She has to be kept on that show as a know nothing punching bag. When you are laughed at.....you are in BIG trouble. A voice transplant would help give her some "Gravitas." If you pull the string in her back she will chant, "It's Bush's fault...It's Bush's fault!"
Has anyone ever seen Clift
Submitted by rockyracoon on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 6:05pm.
Has anyone ever seen Clift and Colmes together at the same time? just sayin.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
ewwww, I pictured that! Hmm,
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:47pm.
ewwww, I pictured that! Hmm, maybe you ARE on to something there!!!
Ronald Reagan
Another thing to pin on Bush
Submitted by Carborendum on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 7:47pm.
Really??? The economy I can kinda see pegging on W. But they're blaming Libya on him as well?!? That is just pathetic. IT'S OFFICIAL!!! ANYthing the people disagree with en mass must be because Bush did "something" to cause it to happen today.
Pathetic.
Bush didn't go into the Middle East Alone. He had a coalition
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:09pm.
of other nations who were there. He led the way, but they were there. France and Germany didnt' want to help because they had sweetheart deals with Saddam's oil. They were afraid to lose it.
Wait a sec. - I thought it
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 8:48pm.
Wait a sec. - I thought it was Carter & Mika's Daddy that were the roots to what is happening now?
Ronald Reagan
Clift
Submitted by batcat on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 9:44pm.
Clift gives morons a bad name.
Monica had the biddy
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 10:26pm.
shaking in her boots. There was nothing even close to a valid comeback offered. It's amusing watching an "intellectual" writer fumbling for some non-existent talking point and being laughed at.
easy
Submitted by caveman1313 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 1:13am.
"Really makes you wonder how any of these people can look themselves in the mirror when they brush their teeth."
easy, they don't have a reflection in a mirror.
They brush their teeth?
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 9:26am.
They brush their teeth?
Even the name of the operation requires scrutiny
Submitted by Findail on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:42pm.
Any liberals care to explain how the 'dawn' of an extended 10 year wanderings into one escapade to another would equate to a 'scope limited military operation'. Also how this helps define a clear goal.
1. An extended adventurous voyage or trip.
2. An intellectual or spiritual quest
1. (Literature / Poetry) a Greek epic poem, attributed to Homer (c. 800 bc), describing the ten-year homeward wanderings of Odysseus after the fall of Troy
2. (often not capital) any long eventful journey
or is this another example of changing the definition of facts to suite the ideological fantasy of a man with a messiah complex... or as liberal Obama supporters term it.. a gaffe
which by the way is...
•faux pas: a socially awkward or tactless act
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn