Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
Kinda like decrying Bush for bombing countries that didn't attack us and congratulating Obama for Libya....
Pete
|
Good point Pete. And to be sure, there are a lot of folks guilty of exactly what you lay out.
I was okay with Afghanistan. Not crazy about the idea, but okay with it. I was afraid it would become a quagmire, but I understood why we were doing it. The "they didn't attack us" cry from the left with regard to Iraq is a little different, at least in my case (and that's all I can speak to). It was appropriate only because an effort was being made at the time to mislead our country into believing there was some link- a link that seemed dubious at the time and turned out to be completely fabricated. So you're leaving a good deal of context out when you put it that way.
Contrast that with Libya where there was an active public uprising against a brutal dictator who was guilty of terrorist attacks against us- A NATO mission at the request of the people of that country. A limited mission with a much, much (MUCH) smaller chance of becoming an extended mess.
I gotta tell you, I think it's all pretty disingenuous. I'm pretty sure if Obama had chosen to sit it out and let NATO go without us, he'd be getting hell for that too. He did get hell for a while from many on the right who said we weren't involved enough. If you recall, he got a load of hell from the right for not doing enough in Egypt (though I think we'll find, one day, that he did a lot more than we were aware of).