You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.
The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.
Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?
Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.
And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.
I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.
Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”
Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!
Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.
If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?
And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.
For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
[…] Related: A topsy-turvy world on MSNBC. […]
They’ll have to ban cameras completely to prevent images that make Obama look bad.
We are in fact in up to our eyebrows because of Gaddafi’s speech, aptly summed up as “I’m going to kill everybody and their dog, starting tomorrow”. Chicago Boyz blog noted that he used two words, “no mercy”, that bought him about two hundred Tomahawks. Had Gaddaffi just shut his trap and acted like he just wanted those misguided rebs to come in from the cold, and all will be sunshine and unicorns, he probably could have retaken the country and then slaughtered to his hearts content, but he just couldn’t shut his yap, and here we are.
Interesting that both Mubarak and Gadaffi may fall because of ill-timed and appallingly stupid and blind speeches. Egypt saw the mobs get a rumor that HM would resign , they were electrified, and then HM comes out with this utterly pathetic speech saying, “Have no fear, nothing will change, and you’ll like it!” 24 hours later, he was dust. Now Mo’mar pops off with a charming “blood will run in the streets” little missive, and ‘Cry Havoc!, and let loose the dogs of… a tightly scoped kinetic military action”.
International statesmanship: Does anybody know how to play this game any more??
Pat also believes we shouldn’t be in. Period. Do you agree with that?
Is it a war? Not only ask those we’re attacking, ask us what we’d call it if Libya were bombing us with even 1/1000 of what we’re unleashing upon them.
That was the most vapid and incoherent speech I have ever heard from this guy so far. It was so full of lies and strawmen that I was shaking my head with every other line he uttered. There is no clearly defined mission at best, and at worst we have a mission that we want to do(take out gadaffi) but won’t do because it might upset the UN!
This is madness.
Actually Chris Pat said we shouldn’t have been in there but now that we are in we have to be in to win.
I think we have no interest in being in Libya. I think the only reason we are actually there is because the president said “Gaddafi must go” when it looked like the Rebels had an easy win.
It it was me I would have kept my mouth shut and let the Europeans and the Arabs fight their own war this time. They wanted to lead I would have let them.
Contrariwise if going in I would have declared the no fly zone while the rebels were at the gates of Tripoli.
But its all moot, we ARE in and we are going to stay in and since we are in we have to fight to win, that means the removal of Gaddafi and his sons.
Update: Thinking further and knowing me, the above is the rational answer of a smart leader, it’s the right answer but when it came down to it I don’t think I could have let those guys get slaughtered in Benghazi if I could have stopped it.
I slept through the boy-king’s speechifying.
A much better use of the time.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed
It is almost amusing watching this administration twist itself into this position if the tragic results were not so predictable.
We are bombing Libyan Gov. forces, in support of the rebels and doing just about anything militarily to weaken and destabilize their government, but the military policy is NOT regime change.
On the the other side of the White house and in the State Department our government, as Susan Rice described just this morning and the President last night, is doing everything possible “politically” to destabilize the regime and has the policy of regime change.
I guess regime change is ok when you just have it as political objective and not a military one, all while you are bombing their forces into the stone age.
The sad thing is the result of all this is predictable. Right now the White (government) forces are trying to quash the revolution. If the rebels are protected and succeed there will be a reign of terror to settle the score with former government officials, their family, and friends. Any fragile democratic underpinnings of the revolution will be cast away in favor of a strong government to provide stability. Most likely it will be more like an Iatola rather than an Ataturk.
If that doesn’t work we are just going to destabilize a terrorist sponsoring regime with plenty oil resources to pay for attacks in an age of asymmetrical warfare. That should work out great.
Our government, driven so they don’t say they planned a regime change, are going to let chance decide the fate of what happens in Libya. The Bush plan in Iraq at least had a plan for transition of government. It didn’t work, and if results matter you can say it was a bad plan; and they had to start from scratch. But they at least had a bad plan that didn’t work. I think I would take that over no plan at all.
As an aside; I look at this potential fiasco with no real plan nor objectives and would prefer if our resources where used to help the Japanese. They are probably our best Ally in the world after the UK. We should be marshaling every available resource to help our ally with a major humanitarian crisis, not be rolled into Libya by France. Both are legit crisiseses, but I think our ally and our interests trump this incoherent Libya policy if we had to choose one over the other.
Intervening in a civil war is against international law. The UN had no right to intervene in the private business of Libya. Besides, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of getting killed without our help. And since when does NATO get into this? It’s the Mediterranean, not the North Atlantic. HA.
[…] “Now that we’re in, we should be there to win.” […]
American needs a kick in the collective testicles to remind us of what the world is really like. The world is not a college campus. And, yes, there are millions overseas aching to slit the throats of you and yours.
[…] “Ask those Libyan soldiers under our guns if it is a war.” You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the […] […]
[…] “Ask those Libyan soldiers under our guns if it is a war.” […]