NY Times Editorial Board Finally Finds Their Groove On Libya Intervention

Whew! I thought this day would never come. The anonymous big wigs who provide us with the sense of the paper have finally figured out their position on Obama’s “war of choice” after much martini related discussion, and we find out that they are “concerned

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The United Nations Security Council resolution authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and was perhaps the only hope of stopping him from slaughtering thousands more.

Broken record time: Resolution 1441, and the slaughter of Iraqi citizens.

The resolution was an extraordinary moment in recent history. The United Nations, the United States and the Europeans dithered for an agonizingly long time and then — with the rebels’ last redoubt, Benghazi, about to fall — acted with astonishing speed to endorse a robust mandate that goes far beyond a simple no-fly zone. More extraordinary was that the call to action was led by France and Britain and invited by the Arab League.

Resolution 1441 was passed at the UN almost two months after Bush asked them for it.

American commanders on Monday claimed success in attacking Libyan air defenses and command and control operations. Over the weekend, there were strikes against Libyan aircraft on the ground, forces headed toward Benghazi and even Colonel Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli. Colonel Qaddafi remained defiant and announced plans to arm one million loyalists. He gathered women and children as human shields at his compound. On Monday, his forces drove rebels back from the strategically important town Ajdabiya.

Remember when the Leftists were supportive of all the human shields that Saddam was using?

There is much to concern us. President Obama correctly agreed to deploy American forces only when persuaded that other nations would share the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law. The United States is already bogged down in two wars. It can’t be seen as intervening unilaterally in another Muslim nation. But even with multinational support, it should not have to shoulder the brunt of this conflict.

Sigh. Boilerplate Liberal talking points. Over 40 nations were part of the Coalition during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Many Muslim countries were involved. Let’s skip to the end, shall we?

There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly — not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.

Let’s try that again

Iraq is a specific case: Saddam Husein is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition…..

Iraq had enormous stockpiles of chlorine, which could be used to make chlorine and mustard gases. There were terrorist bases all over Iraq, and Saddam paid families $25,000 for a child to suicide themselves in Israel. Some members of Al-Qaeda did flee to Iraq, such as Zarqawi. He crushed the Kurds and others. He murdered, tortured, and raped his citizens. So, I guess the Fish Wrap is saying that Iraq was a good and just war.

We’ll see if the Fish Wrap’s support holds up if things turn a bit sour.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “NY Times Editorial Board Finally Finds Their Groove On Libya Intervention”

  1. captainfish says:

    biased liberal hypocrites.

    no way this action is legal or constitutional.

    Congress needs to stop it.

    Please tell me what civilians are in danger? They are rebels with guns.

    Am surprised with the hatred Obama has for England, that he would work with them on anything.

  2. Black Sabbath says:

    Shred of credibility held by the Left went straight to hell last week.
    1) Obama sends us to War #3.
    2) Obama then goes on vacation.
    3) Obama then hands Soros-dominated Petrobas an oil rig permit. Something we’re not allowed to have.
    4) Petrobas can now drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Something we’re not allowed to do.
    5) Petrobas then will sell the oil to the US. Because we can’t drill our own.
    6) Obama admits the trip to Brazil is to help the economy of Brazil – while completely ignoring our ruined economy.
    7) During all this, Obama almost completely ignores the earthquake/nuclear meltdown in Japan, the effects of which have now reached our shores.

    I dare – DARE any Liberal to defend this.

  3. captainfish says:

    Don’t forget blaming them for blasting Bush for taking a year to convince 41 nations to join us in the war against Saddam who violated several dozen sanctions by then, saying Bush “rushed” us in to war.

    Yet, Obama waits on the UN to make a decision for him to latch on to within only a month of things happening on the ground WITHOUT ever once attempting to negotiate with Kadafi or impact sanctions on him.

    You are right BS, the liberals have absolutely no credibility.

    However, I do give Kudos to the absolute left in Congress, the typical anti-war crowd who recently came out and blasted Obama for going to war. At least they are consistent – doing the same against Bush. But, no word from the anti-war crowd in general. No word from code-Pink. No word from the Congressional Black Caucus for putting blacks in harms way. No word from (whomever it was) about instituting a draft..

    we could go on and on.

    Liberals suck. Liberalism is a disease on the mind. We need to institute an “Escape From New York” plan for liberals. Give them a sealed off area and let them implement their policies to their hearts content and see how it goes.

    Oh yeah… Cuba.

  4. Trish says:

    What they both said, above. And double that.

Pirate's Cove