Rightbloggers on Libya Action: For It Before They Were Against It

tomt200.jpgWell, President Obama has functionally invaded his first country as part of a joint military implementation with the UK and France of a no-fly zone over Libya. Did you expect rightbloggers, who had been bitching about his inaction on the matter, to applaud him for coming around?

You didn't? Oh, good, you've been paying attention.

Some of them just decided that, now that the action is actually happening, it isn't such a good idea as it once seemed. Others just decided to dispense with the foreign policy crap altogether, and used their platforms to settle old scores, mock Obama for being pussy-whipped into war, etc.

Prior to the installation of the no-fly zone last week, conservatives generally portrayed Obama as indecisive on the matter.

"I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Obama to react," said Weasel Zippers, "he'll vote present and let the Europeans decide Libya's fate, at the very least a no-fly zone is needed to stop Gaddafi's forces from crushing the rebels."

"Moammar Khadafy is moving relentlessly to crush the Libyan revolt that once promised the overthrow of one of the world's most despicable regimes," said John Podhoretz. "So where is the president?... Obama is defining himself in a way that will destroy him."

"The White House has said the U.S. will send aid to the rebels and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with their transitional council next week," wrote Michael Barone. "Aid, not arms; a meeting, but (unlike France and Portugal) no official recognition. The president seems to be voting 'present' once again."

"NRO's Jim Geraghty summed it up on twitter," wrote Matthew Shaffer. "'Ya hear that, Gaddafi? You keep pulling these stunts, and we'll continue to evaluate all options!'"

"..far from supporting the Libyan people in even their basic right to survival," wrote National Review's David Pryce-Jones, "Obama has apparently decided on a non-show. Then he has said he is 'very concerned.' Is there any cliché more feeble in the entire political lexicon? 'Very concerned' means, 'I'm doing nothing, you may get on with your plans.'"

Even on March 17, as the UN was authorizing "all necessary measures" to halt Qaddafi's attacks on insurgent, Pryce-Jones was writing, "[Obama's] multinational and bilateral stuff is just that -- stuff -- a recipe for inertia, arenas for self-important diplomats in which to generate hot air, to propose meetings and postpone them, to pass resolutions watered down until they are meaningless... Obama's refusal to commit the United States over Libya has given Qaddafi an international Get-Out-of-Jail card. First disappointment, then danger." Maybe Pryce-Jones just has long lead times, like Conrad Black ("On Libya, the U.S. Is a Pitiful Giant").

Him again? What is it this time?
On February 28, Victor Davis Hanson mocked Obama as a pusillanimous "Academic-in-Chief," and denounced the Administration's "enfeebled response to the pathological Qaddafi."

By March 16, as Obama was ramping up, Hanson began, "There are plenty of good arguments for imposing a no-fly zone in Libya." He even predicted that if Obama were to "bomb Qaddadi.. The Cindy Sheehan crowd would either be silent or be silenced by the liberal community," which wasn't a good bet.

But then Hanson added that "using military force at this moment in Libya is a bad idea," and also added that "we have no idea who exactly the Libyan protesters are or what they represent." And, he said "Obama, in contrast [to Bush], is as likely as not to back out of Libya should things go wrong. Plus: "Nor do we have a systematic plan of action in Libya: Is the idea that we will impose a no-fly zone in the air, but would do nothing to stop an exposed column of Qaddafi's tanks from streaming along below to slaughter outmanned insurgents?" (That would seem to suggest a no-fly zone with ground attacks, which has in fact been happening.)

Finally, Hanson decided that "direct military intervention in Libya is a noble idea that this country, at this moment of incoherence and as it is currently led, has no business embracing." The message was clear: The United States should deal with Qaddafi unless Obama is President and actually does it, in which case it's ridiculous.

On the 20th Hanson acknowledged the no-fly zone, and ran a similar routine, though more pithily: "Now that we are committed to a no-fly zone (an unwise idea, I think, given the absence of consistent aims or defined objectives), we must support it and ensure its success." No pleasing some people.

Hot Air's Allahpundit had been impatient for Libyan action since February: "As I'm writing this, Hillary has just issued a statement," he scoffed then. "I haven't seen it yet, but no doubt all the 'gravely concerned' I's are dotted and the 'we urge restraint' T's are crossed."

Later Allahpundit speculated: "Jackson Diehl of WaPo warns that if Qaddafi wins, it could demoralize the entire Arab democracy movement in the region. Sad to say, but could that actually be one of the reasons for western dithering?... A reptilian assessment, but that's foreign policy for you."

When it became clear that this was not the Administration's reptilian plan, Allahpundit evinced no relief. "What happens if the war on the ground drags on and the Brits, French, etc, decide it's not worth persevering?" he asked. "Will the USAF then return to 'heavy kinetic activity' or is that the end of the mission?"

To be fair, there were some who dissented forthrightly. Timothy Carney opposed intervention on the grounds that it reflected the same "big-government agenda that galvanized the Tea Parties." Unsurprisingly, that didn't gain traction with the Tea People, whose opposition to Big Gummint is highly selective. But it did resonate with some old-guard conservatives and of course Ron Paul, bless him.

Most other rightbloggers either engaged in watery yeah-but-not-like-that demurrers, or went off on tangents.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Shorter Wingnuts: "First they came for the insane mass-murdering tyrants ..."

Typical liberal fascism: attack a helpless dictator just because he's butchering his own people! That's SO World War 2 ... but then, so is the right-wing opposition tut-tutting this senseless act of Big Government violence against that nice man Mr. Hitler, er, I mean, Quaddaffi.

If Obama REALLY loved America, he'd do what Bush did in Iraq or Reagan did in Grenada & Nicaragua: smile into the camera & lie like a motherfucker.

Consumer Unit 5012
Consumer Unit 5012

Moe Lane: "And since we're bringing up uncomfortable truths, let me add this one: we were right on the war, rubes, and you were not."

So, where'd those Weapons of Mass Destruction get to?

(Funny. On his page, there's a link in that line, and it leads to a 'Not Found".)


These conservatives must have been absolutely SHATTERED in March 2003 when they learned that a president who had promised a "more humble foreign policy," launched an attack on a country that posed us no threat. I'm gonna go check real quick to see what they wrote.


I don't approve of Obama starting hostilities without authorization of Congress, but Obama campaigned on a platform of ramping up troop deployments in Afghanistan. If any liberal voted for Obama believing he wasn't a Clinton-style liberal interventionist, that liberal was a fucking idiot.

R. Porrofatto
R. Porrofatto

As usual, the prick-ly Moe Lane is dead on. Rightwingers said that the result of Bush's invasion would be no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And they were right! Sure, tens of thousands of human beings had to die, and millions more had to become refugees, but it was worth it for those basement chicken-chubbys alone.


Well, I guess their reaction is no surprise. After all, Bush's lies and moronic reasons for military adventurism have long since gone down the neocon/con/teabagger memory hole.


Reading people like Moe Lane and Glenn Reynolds hurts my head. If I understand their reasoning, people who wanted a liberal, pacifist president should have voted for John McCain.

Baron Elmo
Baron Elmo

If Obama single-handedly came up with a cure for cancer, the rightblogger take would be CHEMOTHERAPY JOBS KILLED BY OBAMA!

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault