U.S. Intervention in Libya and the Hypocrites

The American Thinker ^ | April 01, 2011 | R.B.A. Di Muccio

[Scanian]

To date, we've certainly seen the expected litany of reactions to the U.S. intervention in Libya. But there has also emerged a new category which displays such a blatantly stratospheric level of wanton hypocrisy that it strains the very term. Looking at the various brands of hypocrisy can tell us all we need to know about the different attitudes in America about military interventions in general and about the U.S. intervention in Libya specifically.

The Odd Bedfellows

When the United States intervenes militarily anywhere in the world, the sincerity of both the far left and far right is invariably on display. The pacifist group, Code Pink is almost as active with their anti-war protests today as it was during the Bush administration, though you don't seem to hear as much about it these days. The same thing can be said for hardcore isolationist libertarians who incessantly rail about the "military-industrial complex" and have been utterly consistent in condemning foreign military interventions, whether in 2003 or 2011. Hypocrisy level: non-existent to very low.

The Honest Brokers

Just because you're a Republican speaking out against U.S. intervention in Libya doesn't mean there might not be good reasons to question the policy. Likewise, just because you were a Democrat against the Iraq War, doesn't mean there weren't legitimate reasons to oppose it. There are those rare "honest brokers" who have their political objectives and partisan favorites, but who are willing to attack their own and give credit to the other side.

[4rcane]

Obama/Biden opposition to war was very specific. They oppose war without authorization EVEN for humanitarian purposes. Theres no wiggle room.

Obama have a truth telling problem

[Sprite518]

Yeah where are all the Peaceniks at?

Just like I thought they were not anti war. Just anti Republican. Wars started by Democrats are good wars according to the phony Peaceniks.