Palin on Libya and how one uses armed force

March 24, 2011

She was interviewed by Greta van Susteren last night; it’s worth watching.

Part One:

Part Two:

As we can see, the not-a-serious-and-can’t-win* potential candidate from Alaska has a far more coherent view on Libya and the employment of military force than anyone in the White House†.

But she’s the dummy.

via Ed Morrissey, who has some analysis.

*I’m being a wee bit sarcastic.

†She also has more intestinal fortitude than anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

How The One screwed up in Libya: let VDH count the ways

March 24, 2011

Like most people outside the moonbat Left and isolationist Right, I supported the idea of intervening in Libya’s civil war, even though that support was qualified. And now that we’re in battle, my opinion is that we don’t stop until Qaddafi is gone; he’s too dangerous to leave behind, angry and vengeful.

But, well, Obama and his underlings have gone about this in about the most feckless, dunderheaded, and incompetent way possible. From dithering over getting involved until it was almost (and may still be) too late to stating goals that not only change, but are mutually exclusive, to coming up with the lame-brained idea of placing US forces under the command of an international committee of bureaucrats, this administration has done about everything one can think of to make sure it loses support for this kinetic military action war.

At National Review, Victor Davis Hanson enumerates the ways Obama is screwing this up. As with anything from VDH, read the whole thing, but here’s one in particular that stuck with me:

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

And on this theme of leadership and American exceptionalism, let me point you to this article by Tony Katz at Pajamas Media. It goes to the heart of Obama’s Socialist “education” in New York and Chicago: that America is no better than any other nation, that the exercise of overwhelming American power is a problem — that, in the end, America herself is the problem:

[The report on human rights in the US to the UNHRC –pf.] was the “tell.” Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. America is no better, and no worse, than any other nation. So, in his estimation, why shouldn’t America be subject to the same “ruler on the knuckles” punishment as every other nation that abuses its people … like Libya?

These are the values that Obama holds dear, and they guide his decisions on every front.  While pundits and politicos were cackling about his trip to Brazil and South America, Obama kept along with seeing the sights, dancing in Rio, and staying away from press conferences.

For what reason would the president not go on his scheduled vacation trip?  The job of the president of the United States, as he sees it, is to be a willing, bowing cog in the world machine. To be morally unambiguous would be a slight to the ruling world order, the one that only multiculturalism brings.

Obama does not see the presidency, and himself in it, as the leader of the free world. Based upon the historical perspective, it is an impediment to a better world where all are equal. The president believes that America is the impediment to a safer, better world, just as he believes that “settlements” are the impediment to a safer, better Israel.

Emphases added. We can take this as part of the foundation on which all the errors VDH* lists are based.

*It truly is an unjust world, wherein an idiot like Barbara Boxer, and not Dr. Hanson, represents California in the Senate.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Bachmann for President?

March 24, 2011

Color me less than thrilled:

CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

“She’s been telling everyone early summer,” the source told CNN regarding Bachmann’s planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

“If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, ‘To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,’ then we’ll say, ‘Okay, fine…I’ll go file the forms.'”

Three GOP presidential primary debates are planned before and during early June: The first one on May 2 at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and another on May 5 in South Carolina. CNN plans a GOP presidential primary debate in New Hampshire in early June.

Meanwhile, CNN has also learned that Iowa Republican state Sen. Kent Sorenson will likely be hired to be Bachmann’s political director for the state – and that Bachmann aides hope to have a complete team together for Iowa by this weekend.

Sorenson is a prominent Tea Party figure in Iowa and holds sway with evangelicals in the state. He has publicly said he will support Bachmann if she mounts a presidential bid.

Don’t get me wrong; I like Michele Bachmann quite a bit. She represents an important voice on the Right of the Republican Party, she is an intelligent* advocate for low-tax/fiscally responsible/limited government principles,  and is becoming a force in the House of Representatives. She looks to have along career ahead of her as an important lawmaker, perhaps even moving on to the Senate to displace Klobuchar or Franken.

And that’s why I don’t like this news: nothing I’ve seen in her says “president” rather than “legislator.” It’s the difference between an executive’s “temperament” and that of a legislator, and Bachmann strikes me as a natural —and good— legislator.

Also, this has me worried that her House seat will be at risk. If she seriously runs for president, she won’t be able to run for reelection to the House. Unless there’s a quirk in Minnesota that allows simultaneous campaigns, of course, but then how seriously will anyone take her in either race when she’s running for both? Or, if the presidential campaign fizzles out after, say, six months, and she decides to run for reelection, will she have time to mount an effective campaign? Her seat was heavily targeted by the Democrats in 2010, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll go for it even harder if they think it’s an open seat.

And letting those progressive clowns take any seat is unacceptable.

Like Paul Ryan (R-WI), Bachmann is someone I’d like to see in the House for the next ten years, helping to craft important reforms to undo the damage the Democrats and Republican statists have done and fighting for the principles of limited government. And I’d hate for her to give up that seat at the table for what is at best a quixotic** run for higher office.

PS: To answer the obvious retort, “You’re a Palin backer and you’re afraid Bachmann will steal votes from your girl!”, ummm… yes and no. Yes, I’m a Palinista. But, no, that’s not why I dislike the idea of “Bachmann in 2012.” I’m generally of the “more the merrier” school for the early primaries, confident that the process will thin the herd down to the best candidates. Therefore, let everyone compete and present their ideas, and let voters decide. That includes Bachmann, but, as I outlined above, I don’t think it’s her best move at all.

*As are many conservative women in politics, who’ve been routinely slagged in the media for the occasional gaffe, while the faux-pas of liberal males get the silent treatment.

**Passing petty thought: This wouldn’t be a response to being passed over for a House leadership position in November, would it?

via Big Government

LINKS: More at Hot Air and Pirate’s Cove.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)