At Townhall, Victor Davis Hanson writes that “In short, Obama has ensured that the exasperated antiwar movement will never be quite the same:”
By bombing Libya, President Obama accomplished some things once thought absolutely impossible in America:
a) War-mongering liberals. Liberals are now chest-thumping about military “progress” in Libya. Even liberal television and radio cite ingenious reasons why an optional, preemptive American intervention in an oil-producing Arab country, without prior congressional approval or majority public support — and at a time of soaring deficits — is well worth supporting, in a sort of “my president, right or wrong” fashion. Apparently liberal foreign policy is returning to the pre-Vietnam days of the hawkish “best and brightest.”
QED:
- “Obama in 2002: Toppling Brutal Dictator a ‘Dumb War.’”
- Thomas Friedman wishing President Obama a success that seems positively anathema to the long-term foreign policy company line at the New York Times.
- MSNBC’s Ed Schultz asks, “Schultz: ‘Are You With The Terrorists, Or Are You With The President Of The United States?'” Say Ed, let’s ask the man who sat in Jimmy Carter’s box seat at the Democratic convention in 2004 and near concurrently dubbed anti-American Iraqi terrorists “Minutemen” that question shall we? Or David Letterman, for that matter.
Of course, as Bryan Preston writes:
The “are you with the terrorists…or are you with the President of the United States?” question is morbidly ironic. Never mind that for years many figures on the left have explicitly sided with terrorists — Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, etc, with Schultz ever once calling them out on that. In Libya in the current fight, no matter which side you choose, you end up on the side of terrorists.
Much more from VDH on Libya on his Pajamas Express blog.