Posted on 03/24/2011 5:58:21 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Republican presidential hopefuls have been scrambling to figure out the right vocabulary for denouncing President Obama's decision to launch U.S. planes and ships into action against Libya's Moammar Kadafi.
By implicitly embracing the legacy of Bush, this new generation of Republican hawks is taking a political risk. Telling war-weary Americans that they favor military interventions against foreign dictators may attract the votes of hawkish conservatives in Republican primaries, but it doesn't look like a winning pitch in a general election campaign.
Both parties are divided over the military campaign in Libya, but the leading voices in both parties are interventionists. One party favors intervention reluctantly, seeks international support and tries to narrow its goals — often to its own discomfort. The other favors intervention more enthusiastically, disdains international support and is quicker to endorse the goal of regime change.
One party sees nuance as a virtue, the other as a vice. American voters may not embrace nuance at home. But given the choice, they may prefer a dose of it in their foreign policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
why would it be a problem for republican in the general elction but not for Obama? Are you say those who are against more war would somehow support obama who just attacked libya?
How is this always about the GOP?
Seems to me it is the Dems that are talking or even mentioning ‘impeachment’...how about it be a gosh damn “DILEMMA” for the Dems, huh!? =.=
They may be referring to those possible candidates that chimed in
If they are looking for vocabulary, I can help them out. Traitorous, circumventalist and clueless come to mind.
We either have a constitutuon and laws that apply equally to both parties are we don’t. If a republican cannot apply laws equally they need to run as democraps, next move by newt is to switch parties.
I must have missed the part where they mentioned Michael Moore. I’ll go back and look for that part of the story a little.
How about “Barry the war criminal?”
How about “Barry the war criminal?”
Doyle MacAnus is only right about the neocons always pushing intervention. The American people and most conservatives, only like intervention when it is a national security issue.
We don’t support wars with no interest and no objective in mind but babysitting muslims.
Palin was yet another woman saying we should get mixed up in Libya’s internal affairs.
When Al jazeera starts correcting a news agency for being biased on a story that's anti-American, you know it's propaganda.
I think the democrats ahve a bigger dillema. If this were Bush attacking Libya, they would be calling for his impeachment. Now however, they have to figure out how to sheepishly support Obama.
They are just more communists trying to help Dear Leader.
I'll help.
1. FAILURE to consult Congress prior to the first round downrange.
2. REFUSAL by 0bama to take time out from his vacation to speak to the American people.
3. UNWILLINGNESS to identify a clear national objective.
4. FECKLESSNESS in determining who our "allies" on the ground are in-country.
5. QUAGMIRE, which will result from this misguided, poorly planned, horrendously executed, unled adventure.
Now, we have our vocabulary.
ooh, nice.
I knew they would do this. I just thought they were going to wait until the debates or late october before they came out with it.
Thank you.
Since when is “nuance” a strategy? This article is so far off base. All the republican congress has to do is vote against going to war and the President looks like a renegade. Even the lefties would agree with the repubs on this. If the Congress does this, he is done. Especially if Ghadaffi (sp?) stays in power and it is beginning to look more and more like he will. This will be Obama’s war and only his.
This should be no struggle. The simple criticism should be that BO criticized Bush for his use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush had (1) a congressional authorization, (2) UN resolutions, and (3) a huge international coalition. BO has now chosen to launch an attack in Libya with (1) NO congressional authorization, (2) one weak UN resolution with most major powers abstaining, and (3) a small group nations crying for something to be done but few willing to step up and take a significant role.
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.