Posted on 06/24/2011 3:36:25 PM PDT by Nachum
This isn’t even the most embarrassing thing in the Times today. That honor goes to their story about the jihadi plot against the U.S. military center in Seattle. The plotters allegedly admired Anwar al-Awlaki and did the usual mumbling about being soldiers of Allah, but all the NYT will tell you is that “They were frustrated … by American war policies.” Either that’s a nifty bit of whitewashing or else the Times simply assumes that you’re familiar enough with stories like this by now that you can fill in the blanks yourself by extrapolating from the suspects’ names. Cowardly or lazy, take your pick.
Anyway. Each new day brings another step through the looking glass on Libya, and today it was the NYT’s turn. First Obama out-Bushed Bush, then Hillary started questioning the patriotism of war opponents, and now we’ve got the flagship paper of the liberal intelligentsia wondering why anyone would jeopardize American military credibility by pulling the plug before victory’s been declared. Really.
Am I awake?
One measure, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney and apparently backed by the House leadership, would allow financing only for American surveillance, search-and-rescue missions, planning and aerial refueling. Republicans say that if it passes, the Pentagon would have to halt drone strikes and attacks on Libyan air defenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Obama said it is not a war.
“why anyone would jeopardize American military credibility by pulling the plug before victory’s been declared”
Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq even, when it comes right down to it. But libya? Isn’t even understandable from any point of view whatsoever.
Credibility?! We haven’t had any genuine credibility since WWII.
Actually, electing Obama has hurt U.S. credibility.
Every single thing Obama has done, from day one, has hurt U.S. credibility....... Libya is just one of those things.
Obama and The New York Times do have a measurement for the legitimacy of US involvement in war. That measurement is the US may legitimately be involved in a war so long as the US has no vital national interest in that war. Should the US be acting on the basis of vital national interest, the war is illegal, unauthorized and illegitimate.
but what about kinetic military maneuvers?
If the NYT is for something. I’m against it.
Like Vietnam?
Uh... unless it is Iraq or Afghanistan and a Republican is president.
We had a lot of credibility after Operation Desert Storm. Certainly the military did. All gone now.
Strange to think it was 20 years ago.
If the NYT is for something. I’m against it.
Same here. What’s good for libs is bad for America.
I truly believe liberals (press, politicians AND voters) do not see the actual hypocracy.
I have the utmost faith in our military. They're the best. The problem is that our country is unable to stomach a long, drawn out commitment. In order to stabilize the ME, we would have to keep a military presence there for at least 50 years. How can we do that when we have people screaming for an "exit strategy" before our troops even set foot on foreign soil? Our enemies know this. All they have to do is wait us out.
Uh... no. It’ll hurt OBAMA’s credibility for not seeking constitutional authority for this little kinetic military action adventure.
“NYT on Libya: Bailing out of a war before it’s won will hurt U.S. credibility”
But it’s OK and even great for Obama to pull the plug on Afghanistan with troop withdrawals when we are on the cusp of beating the enemy? Obama is so European and wise he makes us more like the French surrender monkeys, so let’s reelect him.
F libya.
F the new york times.
F allahpundit.
Oh, and I forgot...
F Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.