No Mor' Mo'Mar

From Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, via Comedy Central:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
No'Amor Qaddafi
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

This pretty much sums up the right wingnuts effort to SPIIIINNNNNNN this good news that is a credit to the President.

Bye Bye Quadaffi, RIP and Good RiddanceAnd How the Right Was WrongAGAIN

HARRIS: Congresswoman Bachmann, on the same theme, you opposed the U.S. intervention in Libya. If President Obama had taken the same view, Gadhafi would, in all likelihood, still be in power today.
Moderator,
Reagan Library Republican Debate,
September 2011
quote courtesy of The Political Guide.com

Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment to Minnesota, because she is so damned ignorant, and so bigoted.

She will say anything, without understanding anything, much less everything that is necessary. If there were any more proof needed that this woman is not equipped to be a Congresswoman - not an effective, informed representative certainly - much less President, or even to be elected dog catcher, the following videos exemplify her failures of intelligence and education. Yet, she raised the money in the last election from the right to run a campaign that was more costly than any other member of Congress. Why is the right so willing to support stupid? Why does the right exalt ideology over substance? When will the right stop conflating idiot and ideology? The other candidates running for office on the right, especially for the nomination for the presidential race in 2012 are not much of an improvement over Bachmann.

Remember, this woman sits on the Intelligence Committee.  You'd think she would know as much as oh, the L.A. Times when they report the findings of the Intelligence community, but NO.  Maybe the Republicans had some vain hope that she would absorb some, by exposure. Apparently they were unaware of her dismal attendance record, if that was their hope. But hey! The Tea Party loves her!  She's pro-ignorance, and anti-science (apparently also anti-geography).

But it gets better.  Want to bet that Bachmann doesn't actually KNOW where Libya is?  Not that her ignorance would ever stop her from criticizing Obama or anyone else not on the far right.  There is this footage from the Republican debate-of-ignorance in Las Vegas.  The following is from the HuffPo:



 

The next time someone tells you the Republicans - or worse, the nut jobs in the Tea Party - are the party of ideas, point out that they aren't the party of ideas, and they certainly are not the party of FACTS.  They are, if anything, fact-aversive.

For example, on the demise of Quadaffi (which is a phonetic spelling, and therefore occurs in many variations) we have this from Michele Bachmann, from Politico:

"For more than 40 years, we lived with the Muammar al-Qaddafi regime and the atrocities he orchestrated. The world is a better place without Qaddafi. It is my hope that Qaddafi's reign of terror will be replaced with a government that respects the people of Libya and one that will be a good partner with the United States. Hopefully, today will also bring to an end our military involvement there, something I opposed from its beginning."

Michele Bachmann is a flip-flopper.  She doesn't know where key locations are, she doesn't understand the politics of these countries or movements, and she will say anything - apparently forgetting that her statements are on the record.   The web site, Political Guide.com however, does a meticulous job of tracking these flip flops, and has done so with Bachmann, tracking her statements while campaigning, which can be viewed at their site, but more importantly tracking her voting record on Libya :

Voting Record Restricting Funds for Use in Libya

On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a measure to prohibit funds for the Department of Defense (DOD) from being used for U.S. Armed Forces in support of the NATA Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) operational planning. The vote failed 180-238. Michele Bachmann voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.


Michele Bachmann voted against preventing funds from being used for military actions in support of the NATO mission in Libya.


Authorizing the limited use of US Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya


On June 24, 2011 the House voted on a resolution to authorize the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of the NATO mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The resolution states that Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of U.S. government officials or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger. The resolution failed 123-495. Michele Bachmann voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.


Michele Bachmann voted against the resolution to limit the use of forces in Libya.


Removing Troops from Libya


On June 3, 2011 the House voted to direct the President to remove troops from Libya. The vote was bipartisan for and against, but failed 262-148. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.


Michele Bachmann voted in favor of forcing President Obama to remove troops from Libya.


Resolution Against Troop Deployment


On June 3, 2011 the House voted on a resolution declaring that President Obama could not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. The vote passed 266-144. Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.


Michele Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution to declare that the President could not deploy troops.

Clearly, President Obama in cooperation with our allies in NATO, had a clear vision of what was occurring on the ground in Libya as events unfolded.  He engaged us in a very limited involvement which lasted some eight months, and did not result in significant loss of life to the United States military, and which has been crucial in developing relationships with the new governments in Muslim countries in Africa.  Michele Bachmann doesn't give a damn about Libya; she is simply annoyed that once again, President Obama has been successful, and she has been caught being both stupid, and on the wrong side of history.

All of which qualifies her to go to work at the Faux Propaganda and Disinformation cable network after she is finished in Congress in 2012, but not for much else.

Iraq Veterans Against the War

A long time ago, I belonged to The Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, even though I was only a Viet-Nam-Era veteran, no combat experience. Watching this video, it occurred to me that not only have things not changed, they've gotten way worse. Now the stakes are so much higher.

The only hopeful idea I can take from this is with the new technology, the internet and social media, that is available today, the charade that we need to be involved in perpetual war, will not remain hidden.

Like other pressing issues, popular opinion can make a difference. Our involvement in Afghanistan and Libya and Yemen and all the other hidden engagements has to be brought into the light and in many cases, stopped.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Where Have the War Protesters Gone?

Salon published a fascinating article on what happened to the anti-war movement.

The movement's drawing power was limited from the start, and then, once the war was on in earnest, it felt -- realistically -- that it had run smack against the brick wall of George Bush's manic pigheadedness. Demonstrators are unlikely to invest their energies in what look from the start like very lost causes. And the demonstrations also tailed off because the mainstream media didn't pay attention -- refused to pay attention. The story line they were promoting was: America kicks ass, new era begins!

I thought that made pretty good sense.  In fact, I'd say one word, "apathy" says it all.  But the author took the article in another direction.

But also, in the new century, once war was on in earnest, the demonstrations dwindled because many former or potential demonstrators gravely doubted how nice the outcome would be if the expeditionary forces left -- or at least, lacking a tragic sense, downplayed the human costs of withdrawal.

From there he goes on with some type of apology for the current wars, comparing them to Viet Nam. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, "getting out" it was the right thing to do, but not today.

What's your opinion? Do you think even anti-war folks feel that our getting out of such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya might be wrong?

I don't think that and I don't think anti-war activists think that. For me personally, the awful realization came gradually during Obama's 2nd year in office. We are powerless to change what "the owners," as George Carlin called them, want. From there apathy and cynicism set in, which unfortunately, would take the steam out of any movement.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

The Third War and Why

via Weaseldog's Lair

Civilian Casualties in The Wars

via A Tiny Revolution

(click to make bigger)

My Feelings About the New War (and the Old Ones Too)

Mudrake on the New War

In his typically eloquent fashion, our friend Mudrake described the latest insanity.

Three military adventures, two of which have proven futile and extremely expensive. The loss of blood-treasure is incalculable. Yet, neither the Democrats nor Republicans proposed cuts to the bloated Pentagon budget. One trillion dollars. No cuts. Apparently the citizens of the United States, through their congressional representatives, feel that a strong military is essential to the functioning of this nation. National Public Radio, no; bombs, yes. Odd priorities. School funding, cuts. EPA, Amtrak, National Endowment for the Arts, cuts. Job-training programs, National Institute of Health, Center for Disease Control, cuts.

Is this what the citizens of this nation really want? Do we want cuts to our quality of life, our safety, our health and culture so that we can build more submarines? If so, we are a pathetic people.

What's your opinion? Does that describe it pretty well?

Please leave a comment.