Video: Donald Trump Calls Ted Cruz a “Maniac,” Says Hillary Clinton “Killed Hundreds of Thousands of People”

That time when a maniac calls someone else a maniac
Politics • Views: 46,217

YouTube

There are really no more surprises with Donald Trump; at this point he’s absolutely predictable, and it was obvious that with the release of a poll showing Ted Cruz ahead of him in Iowa, Trump would start viciously attacking the far right Senator Cruz. And sure enough, that’s exactly what he did on Fox News Sunday.

It’s almost funny. Donald Trump, the most extreme carnival barker ever to run for president, the guy who has disqualified himself for the office over and over with outright bigotry, racism and conspiracy theories, says Ted Cruz is unqualified to be president.

“I don’t think he’s qualified to be president … look at the way he’s dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a, you know, frankly like a little bit of a maniac. You’re never going to get things done that way.

“You can’t walk into the Senate, and scream, and call people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people.”

The narcissism on this guy —- completely oblivious to the fact that he’s guilty of exactly what he’s accusing Cruz of.

I have to admit, though: he isn’t wrong about Cruz. In point of fact, none of these Republican candidates are qualified to be president.

In the same interview Trump launches into a rant about Hillary Clinton (mocking her in a sort of “girlie” accent that bears no resemblance at all to Clinton, but certainly demonstrates Trump’s misogyny once again), saying she “killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.”

Speaking of looking like a maniac.

Jump to bottom

226 comments
1
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 10:55:34am

Here’s what is sad, he’s actually right about Cruz.

2
Dr. Matt  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:02:16am

Another comment from that interview:

Trump argued that the “Middle East is a total disaster” because of Clinton and President Barack Obama.

“She traveled back and forth, but look at all problems,” he opined. “Look at as an example, Iraq, total disaster. They didn’t get us in but they got us out badly.”

“Look at Libya, look at Benghazi. Our ambassador, he wired her five or six hundred times asking for help,” the GOP hopeful insisted. “She’ll take her friend’s call every time.”

And of course, the librul media refuses to call him a flat out liar.

3
Alephnaught  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:02:52am

… And the view from Scotland: (via Scottish pollster specialist James Kelly.)

“Ten things that Scotland should be grateful to Donald Trump for”

4
Jay C  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:02:59am

Right, Donald, let’s go over Hillary Clinton’s “kill list”:

1. Vince Foster
2. Ron Brown
*
*
*
367,381 - 367,384. Amb Chris Stevens and staff in Benghazi

And I’m sure there’s some diligent “journalist” or blogger out there who will be only too happy to fill in some of the missing numbers….

5
Dr Lizardo  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:05:23am

OT, and a bit early, but it looks like FN has won exactly bupkis in the second round of elections in France.

Heh.

6
jaunte  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:05:38am
“Our ambassador, he wired her five or six hundred times asking for help,”

Trump is the post-reality candidate.

7
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:06:26am

Ted Cruz really is a maniac, and Hillary’s poor judgement on foreign policy really has contributed to the deaths of many people.

But there’s no reason to think that Trump wouldn’t be 10 times worse on both those counts, so……

8
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:07:12am
9
Backwoods_Sleuth  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:07:15am

re: #5 Dr Lizardo

OT, and a bit early, but it looks like FN has won exactly bupkis in the second round of elections in France.

Heh.

10
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:07:17am

re: #7 Desmond

Ted Cruz really is a maniac, and Hillary’s poor judgement on foreign policy really has contributed to the deaths of many people.

lolwut?

11
KGxvi  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:07:51am

Who would set a higher record for overridden vetoes: President Trump or President Cruz?

12
Dr. Matt  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:08:37am

re: #5 Dr Lizardo

OT, and a bit early, but it looks like FN has won exactly bupkis in the second round of elections in France.

Heh.

CCJ/Drudge/Trump/Fox “news”/White supremacists will be butthurt. Good

14
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:10:28am

re: #11 KGxvi

Who would set a higher record for overridden vetoes: President Trump or President Cruz?

Oooh tough one.

15
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:10:57am

re: #10 Charles Johnson

Supporting the Iraq war? Libya anyone? Let me be clear, I’m not putting her in the W or Cheney category of mass death causing, but I think she has been a consistent hawk throughout her political career and has supported military actions without considering the consequences.

16
Dr. Matt  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:11:25am

re: #9 Backwoods_Sleuth

17
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:12:29am

re: #16 Dr. Matt

[Embedded content]

Yeah France’s last hope is a neo-fascist daughter of a Nazi apologist. //

18
Dr Lizardo  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:13:02am

re: #16 Dr. Matt

No tears here. The Le Pen’s are basically fascists, at least as far I’m concerned, and any day when fascists are defeated is a good day for humanity.

19
Backwoods_Sleuth  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:13:29am
20
Dr. Matt  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:14:07am

re: #17 HappyWarrior

Yeah France’s last hope is a neo-fascist daughter of a Nazi apologist. //

Anyone that believes “Socialism=Slavery” isn’t playing with a full deck.

21
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:14:32am

re: #7 Desmond

Ted Cruz really is a maniac, and Hillary’s poor judgement on foreign policy really has contributed to the deaths of many people.

But there’s no reason to think that Trump wouldn’t be 10 times worse on both those counts, so……

Which policy was that and how many deaths are attributable to that?

22
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:14:44am

re: #18 Dr Lizardo

No tears here. The Le Pen’s are basically fascists, at least s far I’m concerned, and any day when fascists are defeated is a good day for humanity.

They are.

23
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:15:32am

re: #15 Desmond

Supporting the Iraq war? Libya anyone? Let me be clear, I’m not putting her in the W or Cheney category of mass death causing, but I think she has been a consistent hawk throughout her political career and has supported military actions without considering the consequences.

Maybe you missed it, but supporting the Iraq War was pretty close to a unanimous position on both sides of the political aisle back then. Blaming Hillary Clinton for it is way off base and ahistorical. She has now admitted she made a mistake in supporting that war, but she was far from the only politician to do so.

24
KGxvi  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:15:53am

re: #13 Charles Johnson

Here’s the tricky part, though… Facebook has three basic options: flag and remove posts by a promenint US presidential candidate, allow everyone to post hate speech, or do what they’re doing now and play the “context” game.

If they flag and remove Trump’s posts it becomes a giant story and gets even more wide circulation which may end up bringing down the number of people who use their service. If they allow everyone to post hate speech, it could bring down the number of people who use their service. If they go with “context” it gets mostly ignored.

25
Joe Bacon  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:15:54am

Coming up next—Trump goes Birther on Cruz! 😏

26
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:16:52am

re: #20 Dr. Matt

Anyone that believes “Socialism=Slavery” isn’t playing with a full deck.

Yeah stood out ot me as well.

27
Backwoods_Sleuth  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:16:59am
28
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:17:05am

re: #15 Desmond

Supporting the Iraq war? Libya anyone? Let me be clear, I’m not putting her in the W or Cheney category of mass death causing, but I think she has been a consistent hawk throughout her political career and has supported military actions without considering the consequences.

Also, if you’re going to blame Clinton for the mess in Libya, please explain what you would have done differently.

29
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:17:12am

re: #20 Dr. Matt

Anyone that believes “Socialism=Slavery” isn’t playing with a full deck.

It’s no just ‘Socialism=Slavery.’ It’s actually ‘socialism=slavery=communism=Stalin=Mao=most of Europe today=Aushwitz’

Exemplary idiocy is what it is.

30
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:17:19am

re: #13 Charles Johnson

In typical Trump fashion he threw $$$$… at the “problem” and it is no longer a problem.

31
Dr Lizardo  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:18:33am

Well, goodnight, Lizards.

32
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:18:45am

re: #15 Desmond

Supporting the Iraq war? Libya anyone? Let me be clear, I’m not putting her in the W or Cheney category of mass death causing, but I think she has been a consistent hawk throughout her political career and has supported military actions without considering the consequences.

I supported the war too and admit it was wrong. How many people did I kill?

33
Dr. Matt  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:18:50am

Wingnut/dudebro logic in a nutshell: dubyah can’t be held accountable for the Iraq war because Hillary Clinton voted for it.

34
HappyWarrior  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:19:04am

re: #29 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

It’s no just ‘Socialism=Slavery.’ It’s actually ‘socialism=slavery=communism=Stalin=Mao=most of Europe today=Aushwitz’

Exemplary idiocy is what it is.

Exactly.

35
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:19:08am

re: #19 Backwoods_Sleuth

“I say, folks, you know, I’m sorry I did this to you, but you’ve got to get used to it,” Trump said. “It’s one of those little problems in life.”

LOL! His eviscerating the tpgop just one of life’s little problems though. I despised the man before he even threw his hat into the race, but I just love what he’s doing to the tpgop.

36
Jay C  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:20:16am

re: #11 KGxvi

Who would set a higher record for overridden vetoes: President Trump or President Cruz?

Probably neither. Do you really think either of those clowns would serious check ANY excesses of the Teabagger Congress?
Remember, for all the joy in the prospect of having to address the Chief Executive as “Madam President” after January 2017, she will still have to deal with at least one House Of Congress firmly under the influence, if not the outright control, of the most extremist elements of the GOP.
Recall the buffoon who said his first resolution in the new Congress would be to impeach President Hillary Clinton? Sadly, he probably wasn’t kidding: all the more reason to hope for a Democrat in the White House.

37
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:20:30am

re: #21 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

Which policy was that and how many deaths are attributable to that?

Are you serious?

Iraq War: At least 100-150,000 violent deaths (lowest estimate).

Libyan civil war (2011): at least 10,000 deaths. The US didn’t cause the war but helped prolong it and caused an outcome which led to the destabilization of all of North Africa and led to

2nd Libyan civil war (2014-present): Another 4,000 deaths and counting, and the rise of ISIS in Libya.

Hillary suported both of these ill-fated interventions. Look, I’m not defending Trump or any of the Republicans, their foreign policy would be immeasurably worse. But I also don’t want to give Hillary a free pass on her poor judgement.

38
jaunte  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:20:45am

It’s going to be a great day for the country when the Trump freakshow finally implodes.

39
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:21:46am

re: #15 Desmond

Supporting the Iraq war? Libya anyone? Let me be clear, I’m not putting her in the W or Cheney category of mass death causing, but I think she has been a consistent hawk throughout her political career and has supported military actions without considering the consequences.

The Iraq War was a terrible decision, one she cynically washed her hands of more than actively supported but still her vote at the time was deeply regrettable. I’m still of the opinion that the Iraq War vote was unconstitutional for the same reasons that the Line Item Veto was struck down, it was an illegal delegation of Congressional authority. I wish more Senators and Reps had realized this at the time.

I’m not sure what other options existed with regards to Libya however. The difference between the two is that in Libya there was an active, well organized and comparatively secular rebel movement already fighting Qaddafi. Simply letting the entire country twist in the wind could plausibly have gotten far more people killed. The problem as such was in the follow through, we should have devoted far more money and resources in rebuilding the country and providing security for the new government.

40
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:22:06am

re: #37 Desmond

Libyan civil war (2011): at least 10,000 deaths. The US didn’t cause the war but helped prolong it and caused an outcome which led to the destabilization of all of North Africa and led to

Qua? What outcome should have been encouraged instead? I hasten to add that the western world has a pretty poor track record of having “encouraged” outcomes turn out to be stable or long-lasting things.

41
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:22:22am

re: #28 Charles Johnson

Also, if you’re going to blame Clinton for the mess in Libya, please explain what you would have done differently.

I would have done precisely nothing. Gaddafi was the better option in Libya then and also now. Propaganda about how he was going to massacre Benghazi was exactly that, propaganda, eagerly swallowed by the clueless media.

Also, I don’t care about whether “both sides” supported it. How is that an excuse? We are talking about Hillary Clinton’s judgement in particular.

42
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:23:10am

re: #28 Charles Johnson

Also, if you’re going to blame Clinton for the mess in Libya, please explain what you would have done differently.

Libya News

Of course it is terribly sad that we lost Ambassador Stevens and others, but the Libya story is not over yet.

43
b.d.  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:23:20am

re: #11 KGxvi

Who would set a higher record for overridden vetoes: President Trump or President Cruz?

Cruz, he would veto just about everything while I think that a President Trump (OMG, I just typed that) would sign everything and prefer to fight imaginary foes.

44
b.d.  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:25:35am

re: #13 Charles Johnson

Donald Trump Can Post Hate Speech To Facebook, But You Can’t

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

45
thecommodore  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:26:57am

re: #25 Joe Bacon

Coming up next—Trump goes Birther on Cruz! 😏

I don’t think that is outside the realm of possiblity.

46
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:29:34am

Desmond: OMG Hillary made all of those FP/military decisions all by herself and didn’t have 20/20 foresight so the blood of all the ME is on her hands!

47
BongCrodny  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:31:07am

December 13, 2015

The Honorable Still-Doctor-In-My-Book Donald Trump
New York, New York

Dear Dr. Trump:

Hi! It’s me again! It’s been quite a while; not that I’ve been following your campaign any less, but I just haven’t had the time these days because, well, you know, “community service,” ha-ha. Let me ask you a serious question: Do you think there’s anything wrong with hanging out at the Food Court at the Mall seven or eight hours a day? I sure don’t! But enough about me!

I must say you’ve had quite a week! I know you’ve taken a few hits the past couple of days from a few fellow Republicans such as Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Mario Rubio, former ex-Governor Kasich, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Republican National Committee Chairman Rinse Preibus, South Carolina GOP Chairman Matt Moore, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Senator McConnell, Senator Flake, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, Senator Graham, Senator McCain and Mitt Romney — but if you ask me, it’s just a FEW whiny guys eating sour gripes. Besides, what did any of those guys ever accomplish? They’re probably all R-I=N-O-S, if you get my drift.

So I started thinking about the problem, and I came up with this brainstorm — excuse me, TRUMPSTORM. You can use that if you want. You know how you said that all the Mexicans should go home? Well, it occurs to me that people don’t hate Mexicans anywhere near as much as they hate Muslims, so here’s my idea: Let’s send the Muslims to Mexico, and we’ll keep the Mexicans in exchange for some refugees to be named later, preferably white ones because they’re more absorbent. Anyone who’s a student of foreign affairs already knows it’s only a matter of time before Scotland goes all haggis on England, right?

I’d be willing to bet cold hard cash that nearly every American city could absorb at least
a half-dozen Scots without any long lasting consequences to the ecosystem.

And speaking of Scotland, I read where some hoity-toity phony-baloney university over there revoked your honorary degree. Does that mean you can no longer practice honorary medicine? As long as you still have the one from LIBERTY University, that’s the important one.

And I read that England has a petition and a pantload of Britishers are voting to ban you from England! That seems like a TINY overreaction, if you ask me. What is it with those guys over there? I fail to see how they can’t see what I see. I think once you’re President you should consider taking BOTH Scotland and England off the Allies list. You should probably get rid of Whales, too, just to be safe.

I will admit to some confusion about the whole Muslim thing, but given the VISIONERY you are I suspect you’re playing Crazy Eights while everybody else is playing Crazy Sevens. Because, to be honest, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree in this case. I was just reading a Wikipedia story about what they called “rampage killers.” The thing that most of them had in common was that they were under 30 years old. So you probably don’t need to get rid of Muslims, you just need to get rid of people under 30.
But for the M-U-S-L-I-M P-R-O-B-L-E-M, here’s what I propose: We get America’s Best and Brightest on inventing a Muslimeter, or a Muslimometer, or what have you. It doesn’t have to have sirens or anything like that, just a little screen display that says “YEAH, HE’S ONE” or something like. That way you’ll have a good excuse for missing work when you have to explain to your boss that you were just trying to save the country, okay?

But the main purpose of this letter is to talk money. Obviously, you’re doing AWESOME. But a lot of people aren’t, and so is the country. So I’ve been thinking: How can the U.S. pay off its bills and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I propose a three-pong attack.

1. Buy the rights to Star Wars from Disney. Then, instead of every three years (with a gazillion years between threequels!), we amp it up and put out a Star Wars movie every month, maybe even every week. If every Star Wars movie makes a bazillion dollars, you could balance the budget in no time flat.

2. Once you’re President, you should make an executive order that says that yes, we CAN put living people on currency. Think of it as advertising or naming rights. Take Ben Franklin off the $100 bill. He was a lousy President anyway. Bill Gates, Jimmy Buffett, you just know some of those Las Vegas casino billionaires like Mark Cuban would pay BIG BUCKS to have THEIR face on the $100 bill. You could get Papa John to put a coupon on the back of the dollar bill. I say MODERNIZE the Department of the Treasury! Let’s issue currency in different colors an amounts. I would LOVE a $99 bill, just so I could say I owned one!

3. Then, like a one-two punch, we follow that up with my follow-up TRUMPSTORM. (See! I told you!) We bring back the $3 bill. (This one’s SO good I might have to charge you for it!) Well, you know what they say about the $3 bill, right? That’s why they got rid of it in the first place! My idea is to “blackmail’ rich people into staying OFF the $3 bill. You think that Facebook guy wants to hear “Phony as a Three Dollar Mark Zuckerberg”? Hell, no!

4. Contract with Uber to deliver the U.S. Mail. I’m sure those guys take great care in hiring their drivers, so it seems like a pretty safe bet to let them deliver checks and blood. This way we can begin to wrest America free of the unholy influence of the Postmaster General. It’s long been a theory of mine that the Postmaster General is one of THE major power brokers in D.C. Not only does NO ONE know who the Postmaster General is, but no one has EVER known who the Postmaster General. That’s really really really suspicious.

5. Turn Smithsonian Institute into casino. Duh. It’s right in the heart of a tourist trap, and you’ve got all kinds of stuff you can offer up as Door Prizes to get people in the doors. Who wouldn’t drop a couple hundred in the machines for a chance to win Whistler’s Mother? Or that painting with the grumpy old farmer and his wife?

Okay, so that’s five pongs.

I fully expect you to be a forward-looking President who will take us back to the time when the U.S. was GREAT (just like Tony the Tiger!), and I would be honored to serve in any small way. All I would ask for compensation is a handshake, an autograph, and a blank check. (Ha! Ha! Just kidding about the handshake!)

Your #2 fan,

Bong J. Crodny

P.S. - Vote Donald - and think V.D.!

48
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:32:19am

re: #39 goddamnedfrank

The difference between the two is that in Libya there was an active, well organized and comparatively secular rebel movement already fighting Qaddafi. Simply letting the entire country twist in the wind could plausibly have gotten far more people killed. The problem as such was in the follow through, we should have devoted far more money and resources in rebuilding the country and providing security for the new government.

“Comparatively secular”? That’s an interesting interpretation of recent history, considering how Islamists saw their fortunes rise with the fall of Gaddafi and now Islamic State controls a significant part of Libyan real estate.

And I don’t see how not intervening would have led to far more people killed, Gaddafi was about to win the war. Instead, we intervened and the fighting continued for months, and the resulting destabilization led to further conflict in Mali and a second civil war in Libya that is still ongoing, with a large ISIS presence.

It was just an idiotic decision to intervene in Libya, on par with invading Iraq, albeit in a less populous part of the world resulting in comparatively fewer deaths.

49
b.d.  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:32:30am

re: #45 thecommodore

I don’t think that is outside the realm of possiblity.

He’s done it before:

March:

“Well he’s got, you know, a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment,” said Trump, who was born in Queens. “It’s a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada … if you know … and when we all studied our history lessons … you’re supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts would rule on it. But it’s an additional hurdle that he has that no one else seems to have.”

bloomberg.com

August:

During an interview for “This Week,” real estate mogul Donald Trump questioned whether Texas Sen. Ted Cruz would be eligible for the White House given his Canadian birth.

“If he was born in Canada, perhaps not.” Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

“I don’t know the circumstances. I heard somebody told me he was born in Canada. That’s really his thing,” he said.

abcnews.go.com

50
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:33:23am

re: #46 allegro

Desmond: OMG Hillary made all of those FP/military decisions all by herself and didn’t have 20/20 foresight so the blood of all the ME is on her hands!

No, of course all the blood isn’t on her hands. Plenty of blame to go around. But we can only be accountable for our own actions and decisions.

51
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:34:54am

re: #47 BongCrodny

On the lines of “A Modest Proposal” I see. /half

52
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:36:28am

re: #41 Desmond

I would have done precisely nothing. Gaddafi was the better option in Libya then and also now. Propaganda about how he was going to massacre Benghazi was exactly that, propaganda, eagerly swallowed by the clueless media.

Was it just “propaganda” when Gaddafi’s army opened fire on protesters and killed hundreds of them in Benghazi? The fact is that there was an uprising against Gaddafi within Libya that had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s policies. You may say “doing nothing” would have been better, but to imagine this would have resulted in Gaddafi staying in power is just a fantasy. He was on his way out due to the uprising, no matter what Western powers did. Both sides in the Libyan uprising engaged in propaganda, but to argue that this meant nothing was really happening and Gaddafi could have stayed in power is foolish.

And again, you’re blaming Hillary Clinton solely for actions that were supported by NATO and the International Criminal Court; at least 30 nations voted to recognize the rebel faction as Libya’s official government.

53
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:39:47am

re: #37 Desmond

Yes, I’m serious. Exactly how are ‘supporters’ responsible for Libyan civil war? That seemed to happen with little outside influence.

Not to mention, I supported the Iraq war and regret it. Just like oodles of common people and actual people in power. How many people did I kill?

54
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:44:54am

re: #52 Charles Johnson

Was it just “propaganda” when Gaddafi’s army opened fire on protesters and killed hundreds of them in Benghazi? The fact is that there was an uprising against Gaddafi within Libya that had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s policies. You may say “doing nothing” would have been better, but to imagine this would have resulted in Gaddafi staying in power is just a fantasy. He was on his way out due to the uprising, no matter what Western power did. Both sides in the Libyan uprising engaged in propaganda, but to argue that this meant nothing was really happening and Gaddafi could have stayed in power is foolish.

I’ve seen or read nothing to suggest that Gaddafi wouldn’t have stayed in power absent Western intervention. Many dictators have crushed uprisings and stayed in power. But if you have other sources that suggest otherwise, I’ll gladly take a look.

And again, you’re blaming Hillary Clinton solely for actions that were supported by NATO and the International Criminal Court; at least 30 nations voted to recognize the rebel faction as Libya’s official government.

NATO is primarily an American/British/French outfit, and all three countries were firmly in the wrong on Libya, (the British and French largely because of oil interests in Libya, while Obama was more reluctant). And 30 nations isn’t too impressive considering there are 193 member states of the UN….

55
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:47:03am

re: #53 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

Yes, I’m serious. Exactly how are ‘supporters’ responsible for Libyan civil war? That seemed to happen with little outside influence.

I already said they weren’t. But they ARE responsible for prolonging it and leading to a destablizing outcome.

Not to mention, I supported the Iraq war and regret it. Just like oodles of common people and actual people in power. How many people did I kill?

I don’t know who you are, but I’m guessing you aren’t a former first lady and senator of the United States. Hillary Clinton had a voice and real influence, her opinion mattered.

56
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:47:52am

::: schlepping out the kettle grill :::

57
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:49:36am

re: #54 Desmond

So your idea of a better outcome would have been to stand back, do nothing, and let Gaddafi massacre as many people as needed to “crush the uprising?”

By your own logic, wouldn’t that make you responsible for all those deaths?

58
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:54:00am

re: #55 Desmond

I already said they weren’t. But they ARE responsible for prolonging it and leading to a destablizing outcome.

So a civil war that got going on it’s own, we should have done nothing because Gaddafi would have been better off and resulted in less deaths? That’s some fine statecraft there.

I’m feeling the Bern here.

59
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:54:26am

::: filling chimney starter with coals and lighting it :::

60
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:54:52am

re: #57 Charles Johnson

So your idea of a better outcome would have been to stand back, do nothing, and let Gaddafi massacre as many people as needed to “crush the uprising?”

By your own logic, wouldn’t that make you responsible for all those deaths?

I suspect Desmond would be blaming Hillary for those deaths for refusing to intervene. Just a guess.

61
Eric The Fruit Bat  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:58:12am

The trailer had dropped for Independence Day: Resurgence

62
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:59:01am

re: #57 Charles Johnson

So your idea of a better outcome would have been to stand back, do nothing, and let Gaddafi massacre as many people as needed to “crush the uprising?”

By your own logic, wouldn’t that make you responsible for all those deaths?

Charles, this is the same logic that helped justify the war in Iraq. “Saddam is a monster”, “He gassed his own people”, “rape rooms”, etc. All that stuff is horrible, but looking at foreign policy as some kind of moral crusade is a mistake. It is not. Before taking any action you must consider the consequences of that action, as well as the consequences of inaction.

In my opinion (and the opinion of many experts, both on the left and right), the consequences of action in Libya were much worse than our governments led us to believe, and the consequences of inaction were much less worse than they led us to believe.

Look, I HOPE Hillary wins. Another republican presidency would be a disaster for the US and indeed the whole world. I just don’t like this idea that she should be immune from criticism simply because she’s going to be the Dem nominee.

63
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:59:35am

re: #60 allegro

I suspect Desmond would be blaming Hillary for those deaths for refusing to intervene. Just a guess.

You guessed wrong.

64
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 11:59:42am

re: #48 Desmond

“Comparatively secular”? That’s an interesting interpretation of recent history, considering how Islamists saw their fortunes rise with the fall of Gaddafi and now Islamic State controls a significant part of Libyan real estate.

And I don’t see how not intervening would have led to far more people killed, Gaddafi was about to win the war. Instead, we intervened and the fighting continued for months, and the resulting destabilization led to further conflict in Mali and a second civil war in Libya that is still ongoing, with a large ISIS presence.

It was just an idiotic decision to intervene in Libya, on par with invading Iraq, albeit in a less populous part of the world resulting in comparatively fewer deaths.

I don’t think the Islamic State controls a significant part of Libya. That is just not true. They dominate in Qaddafi hometown of Sirte and not much beyond.

65
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:02:07pm

::: pulling out secret recipe for grilling troll :::

66
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:02:27pm

re: #59 PhillyPretzel

::: filling chimney starter with coals and lighting it :::

Looking fwd to this tonight and tomorrow.

…WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY NOW IN EFFECT FROM 5 PM THIS AFTERNOON
TO 5 PM MST MONDAY…

THE WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY FOR THE SOUTHWEST IDAHO HIGHLANDS AND
SOUTHERN TWIN FALLS COUNTY IS NOW IN EFFECT FROM 5 PM THIS
AFTERNOON TO 5 PM MST MONDAY.

* SNOW AMOUNTS…3 TO 5 INCHES IN THE VALLEYS AND 5 TO 9 INCHES
IN THE MOUNTAINS ABOVE 4500 FEET.

* SNOW LEVELS…5000 FEET EARLY THIS EVENING THEN LOWERING TO
VALLEY FLOORS LATER THIS EVENING.

* WINDS…SOUTHWEST 20 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 40 MPH SHIFTING TO
WEST THIS EVENING AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE NIGHT.

/// So go ahead, enjoy your global warming. See if I care.

67
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:04:11pm

re: #62 Desmond

Charles, this is the same logic that helped justify the war in Iraq. “Saddam is a monster”, “He gassed his own people”, “rape rooms”, etc. All that stuff is horrible, but looking at foreign policy as some kind of moral crusade is a mistake. It is not. Before taking any action you must consider the consequences of that action, as well as the consequences of inaction.

In my opinion (and the opinion of many experts, both on the left and right), the consequences of action in Libya were much worse than our governments led us to believe, and the consequences of inaction were much less worse than they led us to believe.

Look, I HOPE Hillary wins. Another republican presidency would be a disaster for the US and indeed the whole world. I just don’t like this idea that she should be immune from criticism simply because she’s going to be the Dem nominee.

Bullshit. That Saddam is BAD!! rationalization was used after no WMDs were found. We went into Iraq under flawed intel at best, and a flat out lie at worst.

The Libya situation was pretty straight forward.

68
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:04:13pm

re: #66 Bubblehead II

I’m just happy I got to turn off the AC this morning after 3 days of December summer heat and humidity.

69
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:04:47pm

re: #66 Bubblehead II

Check your supplies and and your power backup.

70
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:05:45pm

re: #68 allegro

no A/C here but warmer than usual temps.

71
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:07:41pm

re: #61 Eric The Fruit Bat

The trailer had dropped for Independence Day: Resurgence

Woot, Jeff Goldblum.

72
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:08:47pm

re: #67 blueraven

Bullshit. That Saddam is BAD!! rationalization was used after no WMDs were found. We went into Iraq under flawed intel at best, and a flat out lie at worst.

The Libya situation was pretty straight forward.

Huh? It was all part of the package, I actually remember 2002, even if many have selective memory about that year. Many “liberals” suported the Iraq war precisely on this basis, that Hussein was a horrible dictator who needed to be removed for his human rights abuses.

Even still, you’re proving my own point, this argument alone is not sufficient to justify war, there needed to be some immediate danger to the US to justify going in to Iraq. Libya didn’t even have that.

73
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:09:52pm

re: #62 Desmond

Charles, this is the same logic that helped justify the war in Iraq. “Saddam is a monster”, “He gassed his own people”, “rape rooms”, etc. ….

The analogous comparison, if you wish to draw one, is not Saddam ‘03. You are looking for Saddam ‘91, when he was bulldozing a popular uprising in the south.

Unlike OIF, US interests did not directly decide to destabilize Libya. The destabilization happened without our help, and any outcome was going to be a chaotic and bloody one.

74
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:12:54pm

en.wikipedia.org
Does not control a significant portion of Libya.

75
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:13:32pm

re: #72 Desmond

Huh? It was all part of the package, I actually remember 2002, even if many have selective memory about that year. Many “liberals” suported the Iraq war precisely on this basis, that Hussein was a horrible dictator who needed to be removed for his human rights abuses.

Even still, you’re proving my own point, this argument alone is not sufficient to justify war, there needed to be some immediate danger to the US to justify going in to Iraq. Libya didn’t even have that.

But the main cause for going to war in Iraq was WMDs, not to save lives of Iraqis.
In Libya it was to save Libyans.

Disagree with going in to Libya if you want, but it wasn’t based on a lie.

76
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:13:45pm

re: #73 Testy Toad T

The analogous comparison, if you wish to draw one, is not Saddam ‘03. You are looking for Saddam ‘91, when he was bulldozing a popular uprising in the south.

Okay, and did the US intervene then? Would it have been better if they did? Would the rebuilding of Iraq have been any easier? The answer to all of those questions is no, thank you for proving my point.

The destabilization happened without our help, and any outcome was going to be a chaotic and bloody one.

The destabilization I’m referring to was the fall of central authority and the proliferation of weapons and militias throughout north Africa. This would not have happened if Gaddafi had stayed in power.

77
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:14:36pm

re: #74 Not a Sparkly Vampire

en.wikipedia.org
Does not control a significant portion of Libya.

Let’s check on this in six months. Deal?

78
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:15:02pm

re: #68 allegro

re: #69 PhillyPretzel

We’re good. If this goes like the last one, it will pass us to the East. Maybe a couple of inches at most. The wind will be coming out of the west so it shouldn’t be much of a problem either. Just hate being pinned in the house by shitty weather.

79
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:15:21pm

re: #76 Desmond

Okay, and did the US intervene then? Would it have been better if they did? Would the rebuilding of Iraq have been any easier? The answer to all of those questions is no, thank you for proving my point.

The destabilization I’m referring to was the fall of central authority and the proliferation of weapons and militias throughout north Africa. This would not have happened if Gaddafi had stayed in power.

Must be nice to be so absolutely certain about hypothetical outcomes to scenarios that didn’t happen.

80
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:16:08pm

re: #76 Desmond

Okay, and did the US intervene then? Would it have been better if they did? Would the rebuilding of Iraq have been any easier? The answer to all of those questions is no, thank you for proving my point.

Question-question-question-PROOF.

Thanks, I think I’m done with this enlightening and intellectually stimulating fact-based discussion.

81
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:16:24pm

re: #77 Desmond

Let’s check on this in six months. Deal?

You said it already did.
Were you simply unaware that it did not or did you lie?

82
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:17:12pm

::: dumping out first load of hot coals :::

::: filling up chimney starter again :::

83
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:17:26pm

re: #79 Charles Johnson

Must be nice to be so absolutely certain about hypothetical outcomes to scenarios that didn’t happen.

Just like the “massacre” of Benghazi that wasn’t, right?

84
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:18:07pm

re: #81 Not a Sparkly Vampire

You said it already did.
Were you simply unaware that it did not or did you lie?

We can disagree over what is “significant”. I’d say controlling a major city and seaport is already significant.

85
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:20:50pm

I’m not sure intervening in Libya was the right call. I’m not sure it was the wrong one either. Anyone who is sure is probably attempting to justify their own worldview rather than dispassionately examining the evidence we had at the time and the evidence we have now.

I think it was probably the right call. If someone wants to tell me they think it was probably the wrong call, I’m not going to insult their thought process or insist they have some sort of ulterior motive.

86
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:21:26pm

The (then) US Senator from NY is responsible for X deaths.

Thanks Hillary.

87
Eric The Fruit Bat  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:21:32pm

re: #83 Desmond

(…and now the mask drops….)

88
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:24:01pm

So, what was an acceptable body count in Libya, beyond which we would have been compelled to act? Was there a red line, an action Col. Mo could take, that would be so unacceptable that those who now wish to argue in hindsight that inaction was preferable would have balked at?

Because I’ll be perfectly honest, the argument sounds like the Realpolitik arguments of the Cold War, the idea that supporting a dictator was “okay” so long as he waved an American Flag while executing “communists.”

89
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:24:12pm

Ah, so if ISIS controlled, say NYC, would that qualify has controlling a significant portion of the US?

90
Belafon  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:24:39pm

re: #77 Desmond

Let’s check on this in six months. Deal?

Desmond is Tom Friedman!

91
Big Beautiful Door  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:25:26pm

re: #45 thecommodore

I don’t think that is outside the realm of possiblity.

Trump brought it up in the past, so, yeah he could definitely go birther on Cruz.

92
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:26:47pm

re: #90 Belafon

Desmond is Tom Friedman!

I’m not going to be satisfied until he unleashes the Mustache of Understanding.

93
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:27:47pm

re: #88 Targetpractice

So, what was an acceptable body count in Libya, beyond which we would have been compelled to act? Was there a red line, an action Col. Mo could take, that would be so unacceptable that those who now wish to argue in hindsight that inaction was preferable would have balked at?

I think an acceptable body count in Libya was one that didn’t lead to months more of of that war, plus two spillover wars that have led to thousands more dead.

Because I’ll be perfectly honest, the argument sounds like the Realpolitik arguments of the Cold War, the idea that supporting a dictator was “okay” so long as he waved an American Flag while executing “communists.”

Who’s talking about “supporting” Gaddafi? What I’m advocating is non-intervention. I support less war, not more war. This insane idea where the US feels it is their job (I’m Canadian FYI) to intervene somehow in every single conflict in the world leads to more war and more deaths, including the questionable Cold War policies you refer to.

94
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:28:13pm

re: #90 Belafon

Desmond is Tom Friedman!

I admit I LOL’d. :)

95
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:28:36pm

::: making a hickory smoke packet for grill :::

96
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:30:01pm

re: #76 Desmond

The destabilization I’m referring to was the fall of central authority and the proliferation of weapons and militias throughout north Africa. This would not have happened if Gaddafi had stayed in power.

You know how I can tell you have no real idea what you’re talking about? Rebel groups controlled the entire eastern third of the country before there was any NATO or UN intervention. The rebels at that time were heavily comprised of defecting Libyan Army personnel, including mutinies by high ranking generals, entire divisions and officers from the Libyan Air Force Academy. They’d liberated weapons and supplies from literally dozens of government armories. Government forces were fighting back, and in some cases plausibly threatening to retake the rebel held coastal city of Misrata, but there was no reason whatsoever to think the genie was going back in the bottle. Every indication was that the civil war would last, possibly going back and forth for years, with an ever expanding death toll.

97
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:31:32pm

re: #93 Desmond

I think an acceptable body count in Libya was one that didn’t lead to months more of of that war, plus two spillover wars that have led to thousands more dead.

Who’s talking about “supporting” Gaddafi? What I’m advocating is non-intervention. I support less war, not more war. This insane idea where the US feels it is their job (I’m Canadian FYI) to intervene somehow in every single conflict in the world leads to more war and more deaths, including the questionable Cold War policies you refer to.

I’m sorry but it’d be a lot easier to take you seriously if you even half understood the timeline of the conflict you’re talking about.

98
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:31:37pm

re: #94 Desmond

I admit I LOL’d. :)

Look on the bright side, at least you aren’t Bill Kristol.

99
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:32:41pm

re: #93 Desmond

I think an acceptable body count in Libya was one that didn’t lead to months more of of that war, plus two spillover wars that have led to thousands more dead.

That’s rather wishful thinking, isn’t it? That non-intervention would have meant a shorter conflict? That there would be no spillover, it would be totally contained?

Who’s talking about “supporting” Gaddafi? What I’m advocating is non-intervention. I support less war, not more war. This insane idea where the US feels it is their job (I’m Canadian FYI) to intervene somehow in every single conflict in the world leads to more war and more deaths, including the questionable Cold War policies you refer to.

And what is the alternative? We can do something about it, or we can sit within the confines of our ivory towers and watch countries tear themselves apart on CNN.

100
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:34:49pm

Does anyone have Han Solo’s blaster? Or maybe Honor Alexander-Harrington’s hand cannon?

101
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:34:57pm

re: #96 goddamnedfrank

Government forces were fighting back, and in some cases plausibly threatening to retake the rebel held coastal city of Misrata, but there was no reason whatsoever to think the genie was going back in the bottle. Every indication was that the civil war would last, possibly going back and forth for years, with an ever expanding death toll.

Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Benghazi was the center of opposition to Gaddafi, and it was encircled and bombarded. Pro Gadaffi forces were already advancing inside the city. In fact, government forces were on the march everywhere. Western intervention obviously turned the tide.

102
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:35:11pm

re: #99 Targetpractice

And what is the alternative? We can do something about it, or we can sit within the confines of our ivory towers and watch countries tear themselves apart on CNN.

I see that very implication a lot on the left. Few would admit it outright, though.

103
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:36:00pm

re: #99 Targetpractice

And what is the alternative? We can do something about it, or we can sit within the confines of our ivory towers and watch countries tear themselves apart on CNN.

This has the implication that Western invervention makes things better. It rarely does.

104
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:36:53pm

re: #103 Desmond

This has the implication that Western invervention makes things better. It rarely does.

And now we’re getting the Noam Chomsky, “The West is the cause of all the world’s ills” neck of the woods.

105
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:37:49pm

re: #103 Desmond

This has the implication that Western invervention makes things better. It rarely does.

I’m actually pretty comfortable with when and how we ousted Milosevic, or booted Aristide. YMMV I guess.

106
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:38:20pm

re: #96 goddamnedfrank

You know how I can tell you have no real idea what you’re talking about? Rebel groups controlled the entire eastern third of the country before there was any NATO or UN intervention. The rebels at that time were heavily comprised of defecting Libyan Army personnel, including mutinies by high ranking generals, entire divisions and officers from the Libyan Air Force Academy. They’d liberated weapons and supplies from literally dozens of government armories. Government forces were fighting back, and in some cases plausibly threatening to retake the rebel held coastal city of Misrata, but there was no reason whatsoever to think the genie was going back in the bottle. Every indication was that the civil war would last, possibly going back and forth for years, with an ever expanding death toll.

Exactly. The idea that if the US and NATO had just done nothing Gaddafi would have easily remained in power is absurd and ahistorical. This was a populist uprising that had a lot of support among Libya’s own military forces.

And by the way, the US and NATO were not the only ones supporting the rebel forces; they also got significant military support and training from Qatar and the UAE. The fact is that Gaddafi was not popular even among other Arab states, and they had their own reasons for wanting to see him deposed.

107
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:38:22pm

re: #104 Targetpractice

And now we’re getting the Noam Chomsky, “The West is the cause of all the world’s ills” neck of the woods.

Hardly. There’s a world of difference between Chomsky and the various arguments I’ve seen thrown around here today. If the Iraq war has taught us anything, it’s not a good idea to intervene in places of the world we know little about, with little planning, and an inability to forsee the consequences.

108
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:39:06pm

re: #107 Desmond

Hardly. There’s a world of difference between Chomsky and the various arguments I’ve seen thrown around here today. If the Iraq war has taught us anything, it’s not a good idea to intervene in places of the world we know little about, with little planning, and an inability to forsee the consequences.

But yet you seem to be taking that to the conclusion that non-intervention is somehow a virtue, that we should stay out of the rest of the world’s affairs because we do more harm than good.

109
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:39:47pm

::: dumping out second load of coals :::

110
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:40:39pm

re: #107 Desmond

Hardly. There’s a world of difference between Chomsky and the various arguments I’ve seen thrown around here today. If the Iraq war has taught us anything, it’s not a good idea to intervene in places of the world we know little about, with little planning, and an inability to forsee the consequences.

Interesting, considering that you knew little about what was going on in Libya.

111
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:41:20pm

re: #19 Backwoods_Sleuth

Talking Points Memo ✔ @TPM

Donald Trump to Republicans: ‘I’m sorry I did this to you’ bit.ly

1:57 PM - 13 Dec 2015

Is that Mr. Endurance sitting in a chair at one of his speeches?

112
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:41:36pm

I think it is entirely fair to question any political candidate for high office where appropriate and for which they have direct responsibility. I don’t agree with some of Hillary’s policy stances, for instance her support of the death penalty, her strong corporate connections, and her apparent interest in the continuation of marijuana illegalization. I have not heard her banging any war drums as either a Senator or SOS. In fact I think she has been quite measured relatively speaking. The ME is a freaking hornet’s nest and has been for decades. Whatever Obama has directed - and he was Hillary’s boss - is open to critical hindsight because any intervention or lack thereof can and will be damned. Saying that Hillary is responsible for thousands of deaths is just reactionary bullshit.

113
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:04pm

re: #108 Targetpractice

But yet you seem to be taking that to the conclusion that non-intervention is somehow a virtue, that we should stay out of the rest of the world’s affairs because we do more harm than good.

There’s a difference between limiting our interventions (my position), and intervening EVERYWHERE, which seems to be the prevailing view among both Democrats and Republicans unfortunately…

114
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:16pm

re: #109 PhillyPretzel

::: dumping out second load of coals :::

Maybe we should try Troll Poke. Little shoyu, rock salt, onion, seaweed… make anyting mobettah.

115
teleskiguy  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:30pm

So, we got a new computer system for renting skis at the shop, and my computer in the repair shop has internet access. It’ll be nice to shoot the shit with Lizards during slow moments, like now.

I’m so bored. Maybe 10 people have walked in the shop since I got here over two hours ago.

116
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:48pm

re: #110 Not a Sparkly Vampire

Interesting, considering that you knew little about what was going on in Libya.

Interesting, where has this been demonstrated? I’ve tried to answer almost every comment.

117
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:48pm

re: #114 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

That sounds good.

118
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:42:57pm

re: #113 Desmond

There’s a difference between limiting our interventions (my position), and intervening EVERYWHERE, which seems to be the prevailing view among both Democrats and Republicans unfortunately…

I can think of a number of nations where we could plausibly have intervened and did not.

Hyperbole is unhelpful.

119
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:43:31pm

re: #113 Desmond

There’s a difference between limiting our interventions (my position), and intervening EVERYWHERE, which seems to be the prevailing view among both Democrats and Republicans unfortunately…

But what is that limit? Can you actually articulate it? Is there a line in the sand past which any worry over the negative consequences from intervention are overridden by those of non-intervention?

120
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:43:38pm

Here we go.

Both sides are bad LOL.

121
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:45:26pm

re: #112 allegro

Whatever Obama has directed - and he was Hillary’s boss - is open to critical hindsight because any intervention or lack thereof can and will be damned. Saying that Hillary is responsible for thousands of deaths is just reactionary bullshit.

Obviously what Trump said is hyperbole and red meat for the base. But I also see a relationship between policy decisions and the resulting deaths. Blaming Hillary alone for it is dumb because she’s just been a cog in the machine, but she isn’t wholly innocent of it either.

122
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:06pm

::: oiling grill grate :::

123
goddamnedfrank  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:21pm

re: #113 Desmond

There’s a difference between limiting our interventions (my position), and intervening EVERYWHERE, which seems to be the prevailing view among both Democrats and Republicans unfortunately…

Yes, they’re exactly the same, especially when it comes to Iran.

This retardation is on fleek.

124
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:23pm

re: #120 goddamnedfrank

Here we go.

Both sides are bad LOL.

They’re both the same!

125
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:30pm

re: #116 Desmond

Interesting, where has this been demonstrated? I’ve tried to answer almost every comment.

re: #96 goddamnedfrank

re: #106 Charles Johnson

This would not have simply gone away quickly if we did not intervene.

126
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:58pm

re: #122 PhillyPretzel

::: oiling grill grate :::

Maybe not necessary, this one seems pretty slippery.

127
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:46:59pm

re: #121 Desmond

Blaming Hillary alone for it is dumb because she’s just been a cog in the machine, but she isn’t wholly innocent of it either.

This is a trite statement that is obviously true but also obviously unhelpful.

Hillary Clinton is not a perfect decision-maker, and I think her foreign policy positions of the past are not entirely without fault or question. I mean… duh?

128
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:47:34pm

re: #119 Targetpractice

But what is that limit? Can you actually articulate it? Is there a line in the sand past which any worry over the negative consequences from intervention are overridden by those of non-intervention?

It would be folly to do so since every situation is different. We can only look at the examples we have. The French action in Mali could be a good example of a positive intervention, as the majority of the Mali population did not support the rebels that were advancing and were grateful for the help.

129
Eric The Fruit Bat  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:48:06pm

re: #116 Desmond

You haven’t posted a single link, for starters-and your replies are content-free, devoid of specifics and over-generalizations. You’re engaging in the old “Give a dog a bad name and hang it” tatic-and that doesn’t fly here.

re: #99 Targetpractice

We can do something about it, or we can sit within the confines of our ivory towers and watch countries tear themselves apart on CNN.

Please-CNN is for the proles. Us bourgeoisie get our war porn news from BBC World Service.

//(CNN still sucks)

130
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:48:22pm

re: #127 Testy Toad T

This is a trite statement that is obviously true but also obviously unhelpful.

Hillary Clinton is not a perfect decision-maker, and I think her foreign policy positions of the past are not entirely without fault or question. I mean… duh?

That’s all I’m saying. What did you think I was saying?

131
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:48:50pm

re: #126 blueraven

Yes. You are correct. And quite a few people are still feeding it. I am going to have a difficult time getting it onto the grill.

132
The Vicious Babushka  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:48:58pm

re: #113 Desmond

There’s a difference between limiting our interventions (my position), and intervening EVERYWHERE, which seems to be the prevailing view among both Democrats and Republicans unfortunately…

HURR HURR BOTH PARTIES IS ZACK SAME TING!!!!11!!!!

133
teleskiguy  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:49:01pm

Hey Desmond, how does it feel to think you’re absolutely right about everything?

134
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:49:13pm

re: #129 Eric The Fruit Bat

You haven’t posted a single link, for starters-and your replies are content-free, devoid of specifics and over-generalizations. You’re engaging in the old “Give a dog a bad name and hang it” tatic-and that doesn’t fly here.

And I see it’s easier to generalize about me rather than respond to my actual posts.

135
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:50:06pm

re: #132 The Vicious Babushka

HURR HURR BOTH PARTIES IS ZACK SAME TING!!!!11!!!!

Except I’ve said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that the Republicans would be much worse. Try to keep up.

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

136
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:50:10pm

re: #130 Desmond

That’s all I’m saying. What did you think I was saying?

Well, you decisively described her decision-making as “poor”, which is a much stronger statement than “she’s not perfect”.

Did you misspeak? We’re nice folks and will not bite if you weren’t careful with your phrasing and implied something you did not intend.

137
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:51:08pm

re: #121 Desmond

Obviously what Trump said is hyperbole and red meat for the base. But I also see a relationship between policy decisions and the resulting deaths. Blaming Hillary alone for it is dumb because she’s just been a cog in the machine, but she isn’t wholly innocent of it either.

Indeed, it is easy to be innocent of any less than ideal outcome of a decision when one is sitting comfortably typing blog comments.

138
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:51:54pm

re: #128 Desmond

It would be folly to do so since every situation is different. We can only look at the examples we have. The French action in Mali could be a good example of a positive intervention, as the majority of the Mali population did not support the rebels that were advancing and were grateful for the help.

Yes, every situation is different, but the whining always remains the same. That we should have stayed out of it, because we only made things worse. If we’d stayed out, it would have resolved itself quickly and in a fashion that would have presented the greatest benefit to all.

Except when it’s a situation like Rwanda, when we’re damned for not intervening in what was so “obviously” genocide and thus remain damned forever.

139
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:52:31pm

re: #136 Testy Toad T

Well, you decisively described her decision-making as “poor”, which is a much stronger statement than “she’s not perfect”.

Did you misspeak? We’re nice folks and will not bite if you weren’t careful with your phrasing and implied something you did not intend.

Poor foreign policy decision making, yes. Poor decision making overall, no. Whereas Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bush decision making is worse than poor across the board.

Why is this a hard distinction to grasp? One can support a person for president without thinking they’re great on every issue.

140
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:53:57pm

Could everyone stop feeding the troll so I can get it on the grill? It takes at least 2 hours to properly grill a troll.

141
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:54:07pm

re: #139 Desmond

That’s fine. I don’t think you’ve articulated any sort of case to justify that viewpoint, although I think folks are being a little more harsh than might be called for.

Not that you need to articulate anything. You’re welcome to think whatever you want, I suppose.

142
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:55:24pm

Which reminds me.
Let me know if I’m being overly harsh. I tend to not realize it when I am.

143
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:56:01pm

re: #141 Testy Toad T

That’s fine. I don’t think you’ve articulated any sort of case to justify that viewpoint, although I think folks are being a little more harsh than might be called for.

Not that you need to articulate anything. You’re welcome to think whatever you want, I suppose.

I try not to be harsh, but the “both sides are in the wrong” bit always tends to twist my nose out of joint. The whole “a pox on both houses” bit tends to smack of intellectual laziness to me.

144
Eric The Fruit Bat  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:56:13pm

re: #134 Desmond

Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt either.

(*plonk*)

145
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:56:38pm

re: #109 PhillyPretzel

::: dumping out second load of coals :::

He’s not that big of a troll.

146
Testy Toad T  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:57:08pm

re: #143 Targetpractice

I try not to be harsh, but the “both sides are in the wrong” bit always tends to twist my nose out of joint. The whole “a pox on both houses” bit tends to smack of intellectual laziness to me.

There’s a difference between “intellectually lazy” and “troll”, to my mind.

It seems, at LGF in particular, that we’re all refugees of former ill-considered mindsets that we eventually outgrew.

147
blueraven  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:57:27pm

re: #135 Desmond

Except I’ve said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that the Republicans would be much worse. Try to keep up.

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

Demonizing is now just legitimate criticism. Got it.

148
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:58:07pm

re: #77 Desmond

Let’s check on this in six months. Deal?

No deal. You said it all already had occurred. You are now backtracking.

And as far as Iraq and Hussein, was bot it also said he was funding terrorism too, not just WMD?

149
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:58:53pm

re: #135 Desmond

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

If that’s your take you are horrible mistaken. Making assertions and not backing your shit up is not tolerated. The are no Hillary bots here, you’re just being challenged regarding statements about her.

Your statement is just a petty insult to this place.

150
Reality Based Steve  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:58:58pm

re: #146 Testy Toad T

There’s a difference between “intellectually lazy” and “troll”, to my mind.

It seems, at LGF in particular, that we’re all refugees of former ill-considered mindsets that we eventually outgrew.

That’s most true. I once drove a Gremlin for example.

RBS

151
Eric The Fruit Bat  Dec 13, 2015 • 12:59:58pm

re: #150 Reality Based Steve

I once drove a Gremlin for example.

So did I. Mine had the Levi’s interior, too.

152
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:00:16pm

re: #135 Desmond

Except I’ve said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that the Republicans would be much worse. Try to keep up.

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

No, we just don’t tolerate intellectually dishonest criticisms.
She’s got a lot to be criticized for with out it.

153
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:00:36pm

re: #148 ObserverArt

No deal. You said it all already had occurred. You are now backtracking.

And as far as Iraq and Hussein, was bot it also said he was funding terrorism too, not just WMD?

I already said we disagree over what “significant” means. I said I already consider controlling a major seaport and city on Libya’s coastline (plus the surrounding villages) as significant. You are free to disagree, I won’t harass you over it, I just have a feeling it will be more “significant” in six months.

And yes, that was said about Hussein, it was the trifecta of WMDs, supporting terrorism, and terrible human rights record that sold the war.

154
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:00:37pm

re: #143 Targetpractice

I try not to be harsh, but the “both sides are in the wrong” bit always tends to twist my nose out of joint. The whole “a pox on both houses” bit tends to smack of intellectual laziness to me.

A pox on both houses! (says the owner of the smaller house down the street)

155
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:01:34pm

re: #85 Testy Toad T

I’m not sure intervening in Libya was the right call. I’m not sure it was the wrong one either. Anyone who is sure is probably attempting to justify their own worldview rather than dispassionately examining the evidence we had at the time and the evidence we have now.

I think it was probably the right call. If someone wants to tell me they think it was probably the wrong call, I’m not going to insult their thought process or insist they have some sort of ulterior motive.

I think they entire Western world wanted to see Qaddafi gone. Especially Europe after Lockerbie.

156
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:02:06pm

re: #149 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

If that’s your take you are horrible mistaken. Making assertions and not backing your shit up is not tolerated. The are no Hillary bots here, you’re just being challenged regarding statements about her.

Your statement is just a petty insult to this place.

Sheesh, what would “backing my shit up” be to you? My assertions are easily checked, and not horribly controversial. I didn’t realize they were so controversial among Hillary supporters until I started posting on this thread.

157
makeitstop  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:04:39pm

re: #144 Eric The Fruit Bat

(*plonk*)

Wow, there’s an oldie! Haven’t seen that one in years!

(Still got a killfile to go with it?)

158
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:05:57pm

re: #145 Bubblehead II

He’s not that big of a troll.

On the other hand, may I offer you some Hickory chips?

159
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:07:38pm

re: #156 Desmond

Sheesh, what would “backing my shit up” be to you? My assertions are easily checked, and not horribly controversial. I didn’t realize they were so controversial among Hillary supporters until I started posting on this thread.

You said;

Libyan civil war (2011): at least 10,000 deaths. The US didn’t cause the war but helped prolong it and caused an outcome which led to the destabilization of all of North Africa and led to

2nd Libyan civil war (2014-present): Another 4,000 deaths and counting, and the rise of ISIS in Libya.

You have provided no proof to this. Your assumption being, that non-intervention would’ve have made it shorter. Again, no proof. While others on this thread showed you that the rebels in Libya were not going to be simply crushed by the regime in short order. They were big enough and armed enough to prolong this for a long time.

160
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:08:12pm

re: #158 Bubblehead II

Thank you. Those will work very nicely.

161
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:08:43pm

re: #132 The Vicious Babushka

HURR HURR BOTH PARTIES IS ZACK SAME TING!!!!11!!!!

He can say that. He is above it all. He’s from Canada.

Canada is in fact above the United States!

(Trying to find some humor in this sludge somehow)

162
CuriousLurker  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:08:58pm

Oh, we’re doing Benghazi this afternoon? Never mind then, BBL.

163
gwangung  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:09:05pm

re: #156 Desmond

Sheesh, what would “backing my shit up” be to you? My assertions are easily checked, and not horribly controversial. .

Bullshit.

Cite, document, verify.

YOu’ve done nothing BUT say generalized stuff and and on several occasions you’ve been caught by specifics that contradict you.

You make a statement, you damn well better support it…and you have yet to do so.

164
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:09:55pm

re: #135 Desmond

Except I’ve said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that the Republicans would be much worse. Try to keep up.

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

No, please feel free to criticizes her. We Lizards have no problems with that. But do so with facts, not generalized accusations that can’t be backed up.

165
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:09:59pm

one of my packages came. The Stanley homeowner’s tool kit. yay. Are you folks ready to put the troll on the grill?

166
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:10:20pm

re: #159 Not a Sparkly Vampire

You said;

You have provided no proof to this. Your assumption being, that non-intervention would’ve have made it shorter. Again, no proof. While others on this thread showed you that the rebels in Libya were not going to be simply crushed by the regime in short order. They were big enough and armed enough to prolong this for a long time.

They showed no such thing. If Benghazi fell to Gaddafi forces, they would have been in extremely dire straits. Does anyone seriously dispute this? I would be happy to read any sources that others can provide on this, but that would mean “backing their shit up”.

167
Jenner7  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:11:14pm

re: #37 Desmond

First of all, those were the result of Arab Spring. Are you saying we should have supported the current regime instead of the citizens uprising??

Second, BUSH is responsible for the Iraq war. Congress gave him the authority, but he did NOT have to go to war. That cannot be put on Hillary’s head.

Third, you’re just wrong.

168
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:11:42pm

re: #163 gwangung

Bullshit.

Cite, document, verify.

YOu’ve done nothing BUT say generalized stuff and and on several occasions you’ve been caught by specifics that contradict you.

What specifics might those be? I see only differences of opinion, but somehow my opinion is devalued and ostracized. Nice echo chamber in here….

169
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:12:26pm

re: #135 Desmond

Except I’ve said on multiple occasions throughout this thread that the Republicans would be much worse. Try to keep up.

Any criticism of Hillary is not to be tolerated, this thread has made this abundantly clear.

You know, you can gain more respect in a debate if you don’t resort to crap like “try to keep up.” And I don’t think this thread is about not criticizing Clinton as much as criticizing you and your lofty style.

It might also help a bit if you do consider you said you are Canadian, and you don’t have to vote for anyone in the US elections.

170
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:12:39pm

re: #156 Desmond

Sheesh, what would “backing my shit up” be to you? My assertions are easily checked, and not horribly controversial. I didn’t realize they were so controversial among Hillary supporters until I started posting on this thread.

You completely missed the fucking point. You assume you’re in a hive of Hillary supporters and therefore the response, not because you’re being challenged on making hyperbolic assertions about Hillary being responsible for many deaths. Which is like .3 Trumpwords right after he said the same thing: the difference is how many deaths.

So it’s basically a sleight on your challengers, matched only by your feeble attempts at backing your shit up by musing about the bodies that might not have been. Maybe you’ll be more right in 6 months.

171
gwangung  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:12:50pm

re: #168 Desmond

What specifics might those be?

Don’t insult my intelligence.

Now, buzz off.

172
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:14:35pm

re: #168 Desmond

What specifics might those be? I see only differences of opinion, but somehow my opinion is devalued and ostracized. Nice echo chamber in here….

re: #125 Not a Sparkly Vampire

This would not have simply gone away quickly if we did not intervene.

GDF and Charles already did.

173
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:14:57pm

::: pulling out lasso to catch troll :::

174
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:16:59pm

re: #169 ObserverArt

You know, you can gain more respect in a debate if you don’t resort to crap like “try to keep up.” And I don’t think this thread is about not criticizing Clinton as much as criticizing you and your lofty style.

Because of course, I’ve been treated with nothing but the utmost respect. I see.

re: #170 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

You completely missed the fucking point. You assume you’re in a hive of Hillary supporters and therefore the response, not because you’re being challenged on making hyperbolic assertions about Hillary being responsible for many deaths. Which is like .3 Trumpwords right after he said the same thing: the difference is how many deaths.

So it’s basically a sleight on your challengers, matched only by your feeble attempts at backing your shit up by musing about the bodies that might not have been. Maybe you’ll be more right in 6 months.

“The bodies that might not have been”, the entire Libyan intervention was justified on the exact same thing, with far less evidence. Which has been my entire argument all along….but it’s easier just to engage in ad hominem than seriously engage. Fine. I’ll leave you to it then.

175
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:17:36pm

ECHO CHAMBERZ!

176
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:18:22pm

re: #168 Desmond

What specifics might those be? I see only differences of opinion, but somehow my opinion is devalued and ostracized. Nice echo chamber in here….

Ummm, you might want to start providing REPUTABLE links to back up your argument. As stated upstream, we operate on facts here, not hyperbole.. So you either cut bait or get roasted. Your choice.

177
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:19:01pm

re: #176 Bubblehead II

Ummm, you might want to start providing REPUTABLE links to back up your argument. As stated upstream, we operate on facts here, not hyperbole.. So you either cut bait or get roasted. Your choice.

What do you need backed up? Which of my assertions is hyperbole?

178
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:19:18pm

re: #176 Bubblehead II

Ummm, you might want to start providing REPUTABLE links to back up your argument. As stated upstream, we operate on facts here, not hyperbole.. So you either cut bait or get roasted. Your choice.

LEAVE.HILLARY.A.LONE.

179
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:19:44pm

re: #173 PhillyPretzel

::: pulling out lasso to catch troll :::

Use the dart gun.

180
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:20:38pm

It is always easier to be morally righteous when you can criticize in hindsight. There’s no means of proving your prediction, but no way to disprove it either. So you’re free to argue that an ideal position is “just as likely” as the counterargument that it never would have happened.

181
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:21:06pm

re: #179 Bubblehead II

Load it up.

182
makeitstop  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:21:14pm

re: #179 Bubblehead II

Use the dart gun lawn darts.

183
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:22:12pm

re: #177 Desmond

What do you need backed up? Which of my assertions is hyperbole?

Prove that the Libyan Civil war would not have lasted as long as it did without any intervention.
Prove that ignoring it would have lessened the death toll.
Prove that Qaddafi could’ve crushed the rebel groups in any thing approaching a timely manner.

184
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:22:34pm

re: #182 makeitstop

How about Kamino Saber Darts? Lando has a few and cheap. /

185
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:22:37pm

re: #180 Targetpractice

It is always easier to be morally righteous when you can criticize in hindsight. There’s no means of proving your prediction, but no way to disprove it either. So you’re free to argue that an ideal position is “just as likely” as the counterargument that it never would have happened.

Well, I also criticized it AT THE TIME, but of course I have no way to prove this to you, so make of that what you will. Iraq war supporters say the same thing BTW. “Who could have known…”

186
Jenner7  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:22:43pm

This is the same bullshit that RW’s spew about Obama and how he’s responsible for Arab Spring.

187
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:24:21pm

re: #174 Desmond

Because of course, I’ve been treated with nothing but the utmost respect. I see.

Style. See “guns blazing and making huge wide sweeping criticisms and generalizations like calling everyone on this board an outright Hillary supporter.” How is that treating all of the members here? I put it in the disrespect file.

I guess you have missed all the talk around here from all the people that say one of the most important factors in the upcoming elections is who gets to pick the next Supreme Court justices as just one example. Clinton gets my vote on that alone. That is not the only reason admittedly, but it sure as hell a big one.

That is where you fail with the big “everyone supports Clinton” tripe. No one candidate is perfect in every aspect. Ever. But there are choices that have other outcomes away from what you seem to want to hang on her and the members of LGF.

188
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:25:57pm

re: #185 Desmond

Well, I also criticized it AT THE TIME, but of course I have no way to prove this to you, so make of that what you will. Iraq war supporters say the same thing BTW. “Who could have known…”

Alright, I take you at your word that you criticized it. But we’re still a long way from proving or disproving your assertion that non-intervention would have meant a shorter battle, a more decisive ending, and a more beneficial result for Libya and the region.

189
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:27:07pm

::: standing ready at the grill :::

190
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:27:13pm

re: #174 Desmond

“Because of course, I’ve been treated with nothing but the utmost respect. I see.”

Umm, you come in here spouting off and not providing any supporting links for your POV, yeah, the Lizards here are going to rip you apart. This blog isn’t freeper ville boy. We want facts, not B.S.

“The bodies that might not have been”, the entire Libyan intervention was justified on the exact same thing, with far less evidence. Which has been my entire argument all along….but it’s easier just to engage in ad hominem than seriously engage. Fine. I’ll leave you to it then.

Don’t let the door hit you in your butthurt ass on the way out.

191
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:28:57pm

re: #183 Not a Sparkly Vampire

Prove that the Libyan Civil war would not have lasted as long as it did without any intervention.
Prove that ignoring it would have lessened the death toll.
Prove that Qaddafi could’ve crushed the rebel groups in any thing approaching a timely manner.

One only has to look at any timeline of the war to see that Gaddafi forces were advancing on every front, and were on the verge of capturing Benghazi and Misrata, which would have robbed the rebels of their main support base.

en.wikipedia.org

Dispute this if you want, you’re entitled to your opinion.

re: #187 ObserverArt

Style. See “guns blazing and making huge wide sweeping criticisms and generalizations like calling everyone on this board an outright Hillary supporter.” How is that treating all of the members here? I put it in the disrespect file.

I guess you have missed all the talk around here from all the people that say one of the most important factors in the upcoming elections is who gets to pick the next Supreme Court justices as just one example. Clinton gets my vote on that alone. That is not the only reason admittedly, but it sure as hell a big one.

That is where you fail with the big “everyone supports Clinton” tripe. No one candidate is perfect in every aspect. Ever. But there are choices that have other outcomes away from what you seem to want to hang on her and the members of LGF.

And this is where you misread ME, simply because I critique her foreign policy. I agree, it is VITALLY important that a Democrat pick the next Supreme Court justices, and Hillary has, by far, the best chance of winning it for the Democrats. Trust me, I hope Hillary wins, I just don’t like this seemingly blind loyalty and defensiveness about her.

I apologize if my comments came off as incendiary, it really wasn’t my intent.

192
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:29:40pm

Is everyone finished feeding the troll? If so help me get it on the grill.

193
CuriousLurker  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:30:05pm

re: #170 Camacho DeezNuts 2016

I’m fairly certain the point was missed on purpose. The same thing happened the other day in the Pages. It goes something like this: 1.) Jump into a thread and make an assertion. 2.) When pushback starts, find a way to drag HRC into the discussion and claim to be a liberal. 3.) When challenged on your bullshit, accuse LGF members of being rabid Hillary fans unable/unwilling to tolerate dissension.

I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of this between now & next November.

194
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:30:42pm

re: #188 Targetpractice

Alright, I take you at your word that you criticized it. But we’re still a long way from proving or disproving your assertion that non-intervention would have meant a shorter battle, a more decisive ending, and a more beneficial result for Libya and the region.

Or to go back to his original statement that Hillary is responsible for deaths he claims the US intervention caused. As if a SOS makes those decisions. But he still seems to believe that isn’t a hyperbolic statement. We’re just mean Hillary bots.

195
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:31:23pm

re: #177 Desmond

What do you need backed up? Which of my assertions is hyperbole?

Without links? All of them. Prove your ascertains and then maybe we will take you seriously. Until then.

196
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:32:13pm

re: #193 CuriousLurker

Thank you, CL. Now everyone please do not feed it any more. And help me get the dang thing on the grill.

197
Jenner7  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:33:24pm

re: #191 Desmond

Trust me, I hope Hillary wins, I just don’t like this seemingly blind loyalty and defensiveness about her.

Uh, it’s not about blind loyalty. You made a baseless accusation.

198
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:34:48pm

re: #197 Jenner7

I cannot grill it until you stop feeding it. And remember it takes 2 hours to cook it completely.

199
allegro  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:35:51pm

re: #197 Jenner7

Uh, it’s not about blind loyalty. You made a baseless accusation.

He keeps saying that even after responding to a comment I made that *gasp* criticized specifically several of her policy stances. I didn’t even get hated on for it neither.

200
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:36:45pm

::: pulling lid off of kettle grill ::::
mmmm Hickory

;;;putting troll on grill :::

setting timer for 2 hours.

201
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:37:58pm

re: #198 PhillyPretzel

I cannot grill it until you stop feeding it. And remember it takes 2 hours to cook it completely.

Your forgetting something. You can’t grill it until Charles (or Stinky) puts it out of its misery after we have gutted it.

202
Backwoods_Sleuth  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:39:38pm

Really, this is neither new nor unexpected behavior. One just has to look at past comments littering other threads.
“Experts” never disappoint when they decide it’s a fine day to show up and lecture the unworthy echo chamber….

203
PhillyPretzel  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:41:22pm

re: #201 Bubblehead II

Charles opened another thread and that is good enough for me.

204
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:43:12pm

re: #195 Bubblehead II

Without links? All of them. Prove your ascertains and then maybe we will take you seriously. Until then.

[Embedded image]

Yet you can’t name any? Finding your inner Sarah Palin Bubblehead? It’s very easy to accuse me of baseless assertions when you can’t even say which of my assertions are baseless.

Yes, I am asserting that Western intervention unnecessarily prolonged the Libyan war and led to an undesirable outcome. Believe it or not, this opinion is NOT controversial among foreign policy experts, left and right. This does not make me a crazed BENGHAZI!!! Faux news watcher or a Trump supporter. But I have have been met with continuous demands to “back up” my (uncontroversial) assertions or be treated like a troll.

I’m getting the picture quite clearly. Holding Hillary Clinton AT ALL responsible for her foreign policy stances is “trolling”, “baseless accusations”, “hyperbole”, “butthurt”, “disrespect”, etc. I’m sure I’m missing a few choice adjectives, but I get the idea. And it is contingent on me to be 100% polite and avoid calling anyone names while being treated with discourtesy and being called names in order to be taken seriously.

Gotcha. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

205
CuriousLurker  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:44:34pm
Drama Llama
206
Not a Sparkly Vampire  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:48:10pm

re: #191 Desmond

Yeah, it was on its way to being a stalemate. He was retaking territory that the rebels had overrun but was having difficulty in decisively beating them. With further uprisings among the civilian population and military defections, do you honestly think this would’ve ended quickly?
It may have gotten out of the headlines but numerous people still would’ve died.
We’ll never know if the intervention helped or not.
The problem I have with your posts is that you assume you’re correct and refuse to acknowledge that, like the rest of us, you simply don’t know.

207
Camacho DeezNuts 2016  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:48:22pm

An Echo Chamber of One.

208
thedopefishlives  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:50:07pm

re: #204 Desmond

Whether your assertions are controversial are not is inconsequential. If you can’t provide any evidence for them, then we assume you’re full of shit. If, as you claim, foreign policy experts both left and right agree with your position, it should be a simple matter for you to provide links to substantiate it. Otherwise, your position disintegrates down to, “Hillary Clinton is bad at foreign policy because I (and unnamed “foreign policy experts”) say so,” which is a precarious position to take, to say the least. One that opens you up to all manner of justly deserved ridicule.

209
ObserverArt  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:56:00pm

re: #204 Desmond

Yet you can’t name any? Finding your inner Sarah Palin Bubblehead? It’s very easy to accuse me of baseless assertions when you can’t even say which of my assertions are baseless.

Yes, I am asserting that Western intervention unnecessarily prolonged the Libyan war and led to an undesirable outcome. Believe it or not, this opinion is NOT controversial among foreign policy experts, left and right. This does not make me a crazed BENGHAZI!!! Faux news watcher or a Trump supporter. But I have have been met with continuous demands to “back up” my (uncontroversial) assertions or be treated like a troll.

I’m getting the picture quite clearly. Holding Hillary Clinton AT ALL responsible for her foreign policy stances is “trolling”, “baseless accusations”, “hyperbole”, “butthurt”, “disrespect”, etc. I’m sure I’m missing a few choice adjectives, but I get the idea. And it is contingent on me to be 100% polite and avoid calling anyone names while being treated with discourtesy and being called names in order to be taken seriously.

Gotcha. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

See. You are still doing the same crap, you really need to step outside yourself and self analyze your own comments. Read them as if they were made by someone else. I do not think you’d like what you see.

And if you can’t see that, then you are doing this on purpose and indeed are just trolling.

210
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 1:56:54pm

re: #204 Desmond

Yet you can’t name any? Finding your inner Sarah Palin Bubblehead? It’s very easy to accuse me of baseless assertions when you can’t even say which of my assertions are baseless.

Yes, I am asserting that Western intervention unnecessarily prolonged the Libyan war and led to an undesirable outcome. Believe it or not, this opinion is NOT controversial among foreign policy experts, left and right. This does not make me a crazed BENGHAZI!!! Faux news watcher or a Trump supporter. But I have have been met with continuous demands to “back up” my (uncontroversial) assertions or be treated like a troll.

I’m getting the picture quite clearly. Holding Hillary Clinton AT ALL responsible for her foreign policy stances is “trolling”, “baseless accusations”, “hyperbole”, “butthurt”, “disrespect”, etc. I’m sure I’m missing a few choice adjectives, but I get the idea. And it is contingent on me to be 100% polite and avoid calling anyone names while being treated with discourtesy and being called names in order to be taken seriously.

Gotcha. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

Wahhaa. You want to be taken seriously here? Provide links/facts to back up your statements. Nothing more is required. If you can’t do that, then you don’t stand a chance and will end up on the grill.

211
Charles Johnson  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:04:45pm
212
Targetpractice  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:06:52pm

re: #211 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Rather encouraging, that the French were able to follow their better angels and not allow the Paris attacks to push them into the arms of fascists.

Hopefully we can follow that example next November.

213
TedStriker  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:09:34pm

re: #57 Charles Johnson

So your idea of a better outcome would have been to stand back, do nothing, and let Gaddafi massacre as many people as needed to “crush the uprising?”

By your own logic, wouldn’t that make you responsible for all those deaths?

214
TedStriker  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:14:36pm

re: #62 Desmond

Charles, this is the same logic that helped justify the war in Iraq. “Saddam is a monster”, “He gassed his own people”, “rape rooms”, etc. All that stuff is horrible, but looking at foreign policy as some kind of moral crusade is a mistake. It is not. Before taking any action you must consider the consequences of that action, as well as the consequences of inaction.

In my opinion (and the opinion of many experts, both on the left and right), the consequences of action in Libya were much worse than our governments led us to believe, and the consequences of inaction were much less worse than they led us to believe.

Look, I HOPE Hillary wins. Another republican presidency would be a disaster for the US and indeed the whole world. I just don’t like this idea that she should be immune from criticism simply because she’s going to be the Dem nominee.

Given your comments upthread, I get the distinct feeling that you’re completely full of shit on this one.

Nobody is saying that anyone shouldn’t be held accountable for mistakes and missteps, especially when it comes to important things such as wars and military actions, but your complete fixation on what Hillary did or didn’t do tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.

215
TedStriker  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:18:15pm

re: #98 Not a Sparkly Vampire

Look on the bright side, at least you aren’t Bill Kristol.

Or O’Reilly.

216
teleskiguy  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:22:22pm
I apologize if my comments came off as incendiary, it really wasn’t my intent.

Calling this place an echo-chamber? Saying we’re a bunch of Hillary-bots?

Fuck off, man.

217
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:23:02pm

re: #206 Not a Sparkly Vampire

Yeah, it was on its way to being a stalemate. He was retaking territory that the rebels had overrun but was having difficulty in decisively beating them. With further uprisings among the civilian population and military defections, do you honestly think this would’ve ended quickly?
It may have gotten out of the headlines but numerous people still would’ve died.
We’ll never know if the intervention helped or not.
The problem I have with your posts is that you assume you’re correct and refuse to acknowledge that, like the rest of us, you simply don’t know.

I appreciate the measured response. It’s true we’ll never know for sure. There are many things in life we’ll never know “for sure”. The best we can do is look at what actually happened and consider alternative ways things could have gone. That’s all I’m doing. I don’t mean to suggest that my opinion is the ONLY valid one.

But I see all these continuous demands to backup MY assertions (what, that Gaddafi was winning and on the verge of capturing rebel strongholds prior to NATO intervention? That the collapse of his regime led to spill-over conflicts and weapons profileration? That Libya has since collapsed further into warring factions? That ISIS now has a foothold in the country that Gaddafi would not have tolerated? Do I also have to prove that Trump is an idiot and a budding fascist who says offensive things in public?) yet no one else can back up theirs, which are more implausible in my view.

The Democrats shouldn’t have to continuously go to war and bomb other countries to be taken seriously on foreign policy. That’s buying in to the Republican/Neo-con worldview, where foreign policy is confused with military action and “toughness”. Obama has been a good domestic president even while faced with fanatical opposition, and on foreign policy he has mostly avoided his famous “dumb wars”, with the glaring exception of Libya. We should applaud him for his successes, but hold him to account on his failures, just as we should Hillary. Especially if she is the next president. I recognize that people in positions of power have to make consequential decisions and simply accusing a political figure of “thousands of deaths” is a cheap shot. But do we then absolve them of all responsibility on poor decisions? I don’t think so. Apparently I cannot suggest this without being accused of trolling.

Alright, I’m done. For real this time. Peace.

218
TedStriker  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:23:53pm

re: #135 Desmond

Aww, poor baby’s mad because he was called out that they’re vacuous and full of shit.

219
Bubblehead II  Dec 13, 2015 • 2:57:27pm

re: #217 Desmond

I appreciate the measured response. It’s true we’ll never know for sure. There are many things in life we’ll never know “for sure”. The best we can do is look at what actually happened and consider alternative ways things could have gone. That’s all I’m doing. I don’t mean to suggest that my opinion is the ONLY valid one.

But I see all these continuous demands to backup MY assertions (what, that Gaddafi was winning and on the verge of capturing rebel strongholds prior to NATO intervention? That the collapse of his regime led to spill-over conflicts and weapons profileration? That Libya has since collapsed further into warring factions? That ISIS now has a foothold in the country that Gaddafi would not have tolerated? Do I also have to prove that Trump is an idiot and a budding fascist who says offensive things in public?) yet no one else can back up theirs, which are more implausible in my view.

The Democrats shouldn’t have to continuously go to war and bomb other countries to be taken seriously on foreign policy. That’s buying in to the Republican/Neo-con worldview, where foreign policy is confused with military action and “toughness”. Obama has been a good domestic president even while faced with fanatical opposition, and on foreign policy he has mostly avoided his famous “dumb wars”, with the glaring exception of Libya. We should applaud him for his successes, but hold him to account on his failures, just as we should Hillary. Especially if she is the next president. I recognize that people in positions of power have to make consequential decisions and simply accusing a political figure of “thousands of deaths” is a cheap shot. But do we then absolve them of all responsibility on poor decisions? I don’t think so. Apparently I cannot suggest this without being accused of trolling.

Alright, I’m done. For real this time. Peace.

Again no links to back up your ascertains. I will state again, back up what you claim or be roasted. Hell, even the (F)creepers demand that much.

220
thedopefishlives  Dec 13, 2015 • 3:14:41pm

re: #217 Desmond

To point out: We do demand that others back up their assertions. The trouble you seem to be having is, we’re not asserting anything right now. You’re the one making the argument; now present your proof for it. Otherwise, we are perfectly within our rights to call you a troll.

221
Blind Frog Belly White  Dec 13, 2015 • 3:19:38pm

re: #133 teleskiguy

Hey Desmond, how does it feel to think you’re absolutely right about everything?

Holly Hunter’s character in Broadcast News:

New Division Head: It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room.

Jane Craig: No. It’s awful!

222
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 3:21:35pm

re: #219 Bubblehead II

Again no links to back up your ascertains. I will state again, back up what you claim or be roasted. Hell, even the (F)creepers demand that much.

Yeah, I’ll just leave this here.

brookings.edu

warontherocks.com

telegraph.co.uk

theatlantic.com

npr.org

For the record, my assertions are a matter of opinion, I acknowledge that. Just as the counter-arguments are. How can you “prove” a hypothetical? It’s like asking me to “prove” that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. However, I suspect that the majority of you would not insist on “proof” that the Iraq war was a bad idea. Therefore these continuous requests for “proof” are a little puzzling. I think the consequences of the Libyan war are rather obvious and speak for themselves, but if you disagree, you’re entitled to that. A little civility without name-calling and accusations of trolling would be nice though.

223
EPR-radar  Dec 13, 2015 • 5:14:50pm

re: #222 Desmond

For the record, starting out by agreeing with Trump(!) that Hillary has blood on her hands because of Benghazi/Libya pretty much explains everything about the frosty reception you’ve gotten here.

Had you questioned the wisdom of US policy and Hillary’s actions in Libya (to the extent that they are even relevant, since the policy decisions were made by Obama) without such demagoguery, none of this back and forth bullshit would have happened.

224
Desmond  Dec 13, 2015 • 5:54:51pm

re: #223 EPR-radar

For the record, starting out by agreeing with Trump(!) that Hillary has blood on her hands because of Benghazi/Libya pretty much explains everything about the frosty reception you’ve gotten here.

My exact quote:

Hillary’s poor judgement on foreign policy really has contributed to the deaths of many people.

I stand by this statement. It is not fair to hold her solely responsible for any deaths resulting from these policies, but as a US senator and later Secretary of State, both positions of power and influence, it is ALSO disingenuous to fully absolve her of anything negative that happened. Obama and her other opponents sure didn’t. During the 2008 campaign, I remember a LOT of opposition to Hillary over her Iraq war vote. I don’t remember if the specific phrase “blood on her hands” was used, but a lot of it was of that tone. Libya by comparison, an intervention that Hillary had a lot more direct influence on, is apparently the “good war” for many of the posters here. I respectfully disagree.

That was followed by:

But there’s no reason to think that Trump wouldn’t be 10 times worse on both those counts, so……

And no, I didn’t even mention Benghazi. I think that is trumped(!) up nonsense that has been pursued by Republicans for purely political reasons.

225
teleskiguy  Dec 13, 2015 • 9:54:42pm

Cue The Twilight Zone music.

226
GrantS  Dec 13, 2015 • 10:31:53pm

Wow! Pants on fire! Crispy remains. I’ve heard Trump being called brilliant, and I know he’ll get away with these nonsense remarks, but they are anything but brilliant. He just doesn’t care what people think of him. Even the most die-hard black-coal-nugget-heart conservative will know the claim on Hillary is not true. He needs to be called a pathological liar on live TV. Until the it’s more bluster on top of bluster on top of narcissist bluster.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 121 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 283 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1