April 17, 2010

Polman gets one right

The Philly Inquirer's Dick Polman is a lefty, but he's not a looney lefty. In a recent op-ed, he takes the MSM to task for its complete absence on Barack Obama's revelation that the CIA is actively attempting to assassinate a US citizen:

Ten days ago, The New York Times and The Washington Post filed extraordinary stories - based on leaks from anonymous government officials - that Obama had OK'd a CIA hit on an American citizen. Granted, this particular citizen is the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico native who currently resides in Yemen, where he's apparently aiding al Qaeda in some unspecified capacity. But this is the first time that an American president has specifically targeted an American for CIA assassination. (Back in January, there were also reports that a clandestine military unit has been compiling hit lists of American citizens.) In other words, not even George W. Bush authorized CIA hits on Americans.

The thing is, if Bush had ever put the hit on an American, you can rest assured that liberal groups, and the Washington press corps, would have demanded to know, with great specificity, how such an extrajudicial decision had been determined - and whether the decision had dangerously broadened the playing field for executive overreach.

Precisely, Dick. The self-righteous hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

And that's the thing -- you won't even get a dribble of an answer from "progressives" on matters such as these. Bring it up here and you get banned from commenting. Former Colossus "Energizer Bunny" commenter Perry continues to call George Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. "war criminals," but when shown that former prez Bill Clinton's actions in Kosovo were also illegal (Wesley Clark admitted as much), what is the response?? NOTHING.

Check it out:

Assuming you are correct, Hube, no, I would not now support Clinton’s Bosnia policy. We would need the support of the UN and a NATO like coalition or the like before intervening anywhere.

But ... George W. Bush had a coalition of nations to assist the US with the Iraq invasion!

Even after I showed I was correct, Perry outright ignores what I wrote (proved) and then writes this:

I support opposing ethnic cleansing, and stopping it if possible, but believe it is neccessary to go in with a coalition of nations. In Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing involved, nor were they an imminent threat to us, therefore the invasion was not justified.

This is what a perfect example of what the modern "progressive" does. Perry first says "if I was correct," he wouldn't have supported Clinton's Bosnia actions. When shown I was correct, the response is the immediate above. And check it:

  • How is the ethnic cleansing substantively different from what Saddam regularly did to his own people>
  • Why would Perry support the Kosovo actions then, but not the Iraq actions?
  • Again, George W. Bush went into Iraq with a coaltion of nations!
  • How was Bosnia/Kosovo an "immediate threat" to the United States?

Y'see? Modern "progressives," who constantly claim to be so "thoughtful" and "nuanced," cannot even admit to the very simple fact that if George W. Bush is a "war criminal" for his actions in Iraq, then Bill Clinton is too -- for his actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. They can justify Clinton's actions all they wish (usually on humanitarian grounds) -- but then they have to grant that Iraq invasion supporters can do precisely the same! Once issues of internnational "legality" comes into play, the "progressive" argument against GW Bush is lost; that is, if you "argue" similar to people like Perry.

Posted by Hube at April 17, 2010 10:13 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

No ethnic cleansing in Iraq? Has he ever heard of Kurds? Of the Marsh Arabs?

Posted by: soccer dad at April 19, 2010 11:44 AM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?