It was funny watching The McLaughlin Group today as Eleanor Clift made the case for war in Libya as Patrick Buchanan argued against. Whats funny is that Buchanan was pretty much saying the exact thing today as he was ten years ago about Iraq. Ha ha.
Missed the punchline?
Eleanor Clift agreed with him ten years ago.
Nice flip flop libs, fuckin' frauds!
5 comments:
So are you for every war or against every war? Or, wait a minute, do you possibly decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts of the situation.
That you would make a comment like that as if it were some great enlightened philosophy shows just how unserious a person you are.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and enlighten me, make your case why this is a "good war" and explain how in comparison your past anti-war positions werent fraudulent and disgraceful in hindsight.
Personally I haven't heard anyone make the case for why we are there.
You want to say Bush lied about Iraq? I disagree but it's not germane to the discussion. WMD's was a good reason to go to war.
Why are we fighting in Libya? We don't get their oil, they don't have WMD's, they haven't invaded any allies, they haven't even made any threats against us or our allies.
You're telling me we want to give arms to the rebels? I probably wouldn't do it but I'm not going to be too upset about it. But why are we there?
For some reason you are assuming I was against the war in Afghanistan. I wasn't although I am gradually moving in that direction. I was opposed to Iraq. I am opposed to sending ground troops to Libya but if we can get the job done with air power and arming rebels, fine.
For some reason you think I mentioned Afghanistan. Maybe you should read the posts before chirping in with your canned responses. My sense is you realize this, but just want to avoid being honest with yourself.
Im not surprised though that you were for Afghanistan before you are now against it. You are at least consistent with your inconsistency on this issue.
Despite the liberal spin, Iraq was a justified, and the lib argument proven to be bunk.
There was no rush to war, as it was debated for over a year. You say Bush lied, but how can that be when he was jusr regurgitating the consensus intelligence opinion going back twelve years before he ever stepped foot in the WH. You call him a cowboy, but he sought and received overwhelming approval from Congress. You say he acted unilaterally but his coalition of nations was twice as large as the Libya war effort. You screamed bloody murder bcuz Bush autborized dumping water over three terrorists but now celebrate Obamas drone assassination program. Qaddafi threatened to kill his people, Saddam actually killed his people so dont give me that humanitarian bullshit.
But Libya is justified because Obama thought about it real thoughtfully for all of two seconds between deciding between the chicken or fish for his on flight meal to Rio?
You the liberal media and the democratic party are all frauds.
Post a Comment