Liberals, Libya, and France

After weeks of dithering, the First Dillitante in Chief finally decided to borrow a pair from Hillary Clinton and take action in Libya.

While President Obama waited way too long to stop Khadafi Duck from slaughtering his own people, that criticism should immediately be relegated to the back burner until the war is over. President Obama did the right thing by intervening, and he has my support.

My main concern at this point is that the mission does not seem clearly defined. In the 1991 Gulf War, President George Herbert Walker Bush had a mandate to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We did not have a mandate to go into Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Colin Powell accurately pointed out that doing so would fracture the coalition.

In 2003 President George W. Bush had a clear mandate for regime change. The resolution authorizing war specifically allowed for this.

Is the goal to stop the slaughter and nothing more? This would leave Khadafi in power. Or is he being removed? This must be stated. So far the United States is claiming not to be targeting Khadafi while our allies are saying otherwise.

Yet the bigger question is not about Mr. Obama, but about liberals falling all over themselves to support this war. While some leftists such as Dennis Kucinich have shown consistency in opposing the war, most on the left are Obama sycophants praising him for doing this “good war” the “right way.”

I support the war. Khadafi needs to go, and force is the only way to get him out of power. Yet why are so many liberals so willing to praise this action?

Liberals claim that Mr. Obama did things totally different from his predecessor. Mr. Bush acted “unilaterally” while Mr. Obama employed “multilateralism.”

This is nonsense, but it is finally time that these words get exposed. It gets to the heart of American liberal attitudes about any actions about anything.

George W. Bush had 33 nations in his “Coalition of the Willing.” Barack Obama has many nations in his coalition. So what was George W. Bush missing in his coalition?

Only one thing separates these two men.

Obama has France.

Yes, this is all about American liberals shoving their heads so far up French anuses that separation of the heads from the hides is impossible.

When liberals claim we need to work with allies, they mean Europe. Yet George W. Bush had England, Italy, Spain, Holland, and Poland.

When liberals claim we need Europe, they mean France.

So why is this the case?

One theory is that this is all about the Jews. Germany slaughtered the Jews. France collaborated. The left in America hates the Jews and Israel, giving them a bond with France and Germany. France maintains vicious anti-Semitism to this day, giving them special love from the American left.

While that view is fun, even I confess that many issues have nothing to do with the Jews. This theory is thrown out solely for amusement.

Another theory is that France likes losing wars and suffering from humiliation and emasculation. After Napoleon, their track record is not very stellar. So if France is willing to go to war, then it will result in a humiliating defeat, which the American left can support.

While this theory is delightfully cynical, even I cannot credibly claim that the American left wants to get our own Americans killed. Their anti-war platform is sincerely about avoiding getting Americans killed.

Why do the people that Homer Simpson referred to as “cheese eating surrender monkeys” matter so much to the American left?

Some on the left point to Europeans as “sophisticated” and “classy.” Americans are lazy slobs, but Europeans are so elegant and refined. Again, European does not mean the Polish, who are the target of cheap jokes about their lack of intelligence. It does not refer to the Vatican, because religious institutions must be discredited. Europe means France.

Some could argue that the French share the American liberal character trait of arrogance. These two groups are both “intellectuals.” They are much better than the low class American commoners who go to shopping malls and eat hot dogs.

This is why American liberals were so horrified when Nicholas Sarkozy went to Maine with President Bushes 41 and 43 and ate hot dogs and fries. “Sarko the American” likes us. What were Francophiles to do?

Liberals get angry when conservatives bring up the notion that too many liberals hate America. Liberals get indignant that their patriotism would be questioned. Yet what is their rationale for worshiping France? Outside of hating America, what does France do in this world that is notable? How should conservatives react when liberals cozy up to people who despise us?

(They do this with Radical Islamists as well, but that is more naivety.)

Is it a mutual hatred of American Republicans and conservatives? Was hatred of George W. Bush that powerful a uniting factor?

Is the issue about religiosity vs secularism? The American left hates organized religion, preferring to worship the almighty environmental goddess Gaea. This would explain why the left loves “Europe,” but does not seem to like the Vatican. France is the epitome of secularism, although it gives an exemption to Radical Islamists trying to burn France to the ground. American liberals have this same schism with reality in terms of loathing peaceful religion of any kind while embracing a virulent strain of Islam that uses violence to spread its doctrine.

At this point the only thing the left can do to have any credibility on this issue is to admit that any military action must have French approval. Once this is admitted, the question to ask the left is…why?

France can’t stand the fact that they are irrelevant and they know it. The 2003 Iraq War was proof of this. The Americans and British did just fine without them. The Australians were a more than adequate replacement. Does anybody in their right mind think that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard would have had a better outcome if Jacques Chirac would have taken his nose out of the air and his head out of his hide and supported the war?

Can the left one day finally admit that Chirac and France were up to their eyeballs in the corrupt oil for food scandal? Is it possible that Germany, Russia, and the United Nations allowed personal crooked financial dealings with Saddam Hussein to supersede principles of honor and liberty?

Barack Obama not only got a permission slip from the French, but he let them (publicly) play the lead role. France has not had a relevant world role since Napoleon Bonaparte. They hate America out of jealousy. Does anybody think Le Monde or the Jayson Blair Times praising the French leadership in this war will suddenly make the French stop acting like envious spoiled brats and start liking America? Sarkozy is a good man, but the attitudes of his people toward my nation are worthless.

(The left conversely finds that the many nations with a positive view of America from Australia to Poland to Italy are worthless. Any nation not France is ignored.)

It is a sad day in America indeed when the President of France is ready to fight while the President of America is taking a back seat to the French.

This is not multilateralism. It is timidity, and it may lead to Khadafi staying in power.

The American left does not believe in American exceptionalism. They believe in French exceptionalism.

Alex De Tocqueville was a proud Frenchman who believed in American exceptionalism.

Only America at this point in history has the muscle to take down Khadafi and other bloodthirsty dictators. All the media reports about brave French soldiers leading the charge are as comical as they are false.

With all due respect to the French, who have shown us virtually none, it is Americans who have liberated much of the world, including the Vichy Regime loving French.

So let’s stop this leftist nonsense about John Kerry and other French looking liberals requiring “global tests” before taking actions.

America must lead. If we don’t, our nation will soon be as irrelevant as American leftists and the French secular leftists they worship.


6 Responses to “Liberals, Libya, and France”

  1. Dav Lev says:

    France seems to me to by hypercritical with its hypocracy.

    According to todays LA Times, Libya sells Europe over 10% of its
    oil, with Italy getting 25%. Trade between the countries is in the billions.

    France was against our involvement in Iraq, partly due to it’s oil
    contracts. It never came around to supporting the incursion, now over
    8 years old.

    I”m not sure what France’s real goals are, or its motivation?
    It supports the Palestinians, and has done nothing to prevent its
    former colony, Lebanon, from falling to radical Muslims (Hezbollah).

    The USA is making yet another mistake, this time aiding the so-called
    protestors with over 100 Cruise Missiles and edozens of sorties (all paid
    for by you and me, NOT the Arab League.

    BTW, why are we not insisting that the League not only pay for this
    adventure, but provide ALL the fighting forces? Dont they have
    jet fighters, tanks, millions under arms, missiles, navy craft, etc.?
    (I guess they are saving them for the final jihad with Israel).

    Not one US soldier should have been used or one plane or one bullet for that matter.

    Taking out Moammar..and who will replace him?

    For 45 years, he and his family have ruled..and negotiated contracts
    and investment money in other parts of the planet. Now all of a sudden
    he is number one on our bad boys list?

    Libya has oil, 40b proven barrels, worth 4t. It has 110b in foreign exchange gelt and a slush fund of 50b.

    This conflict is about oil, and nothing more. Protecting innocents, sure, and
    my name is Ahmad. Who are these innocents?

    Syria murdered over 20,000, and King Hussein had his black Monday
    years ago, killing thousands of religious Muslims. Syria just slaughtered
    its own people in the south..Saudi Arabia has 5,000 princes who rule
    a kingdom which often times is brutal (but has 350b year in oil sales).

    Why arent we defending the Syrians and Saudis I ask? Then there is

    And while this is going on, our leader is enjoying his tea in Brazilia
    using satellite technology to keep informed.

    At least Bush went to Iraq.

    Dont get me wrong, I do not especially like dictator is
    w/o cruality. Just look at Chavez for an example. Speaking of Chavez
    why are we not firing missiles at him?

    At the UCI, protests are still being heard and petitions filed to
    stop the DA from prosecuting 11 Muslim students for violating
    conspiracy laws. They claim free speech on campus.

    While not far away, in the Villa town, a legislator is attacked and asked
    not too politely for making disparaching remarks about CAIR and two
    speakers..linking the marines fighting in the M.E.

    They claim the freedom to protest someone who is speaking her mind.

    Is it confusing, not really. Its a very, very clever plot or I would almost
    say, a conspiracy.

    In Israel, a law is being pushed through their parliament to stop
    references to the Nakba…the yearly memorial to the migration of thousands of Arabs during 1948-49 as a result of the first war.
    They were promised the spoils, after the Jews were driven out,
    or murdered. They fell for it.

    Some say that this is anti-Arab. Come on.

    Can we all imagine during our Independence Day holiday if
    20% of the populaton had similar rallies and protests, many calling
    for the destruction of the country?

    I cannot hear you Obama.

    Hmmmm… this but the tip of the iceberg?

  2. Eagle 6 says:

    I LOVE the FXXXXXXG French… Prior to my working with them in Afghanistan, they were simply the hapless French. They will now forever be the FXXXXXXG French…the X’s are kisses. We had embedded training teams (ETTs) from different countries who worked with the newly-formed Afghan battalions. Besides helping with collective training tasks such as patrolling, conducting recon, reacting to IEDs, establishing a defense, assaulting an objective, and cordon and search, among other tasks, the ETTs were also charged with assisting in the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) training. I was charged with teaching MDMP – and key to our success was the mentoring from the ETTs. The FXXXXXXG French were great for drinking beer and wine in front of their US counterparts who weren’t allowed to partake, but they rarely attended training or prepared themselves to be mentors. After one MDMP session that only one of the 11 team members showed up for, I called for the LTC and asked why his men weren’t present for the training. His response: “MDMP is too hard”. I laughed like a maniac when I heard this and told him to take his sorry aXX back to France… I tried to get rid of him and his team, and I offended the French ambassador in the process… and the only saving grace with the Afghan unit is that they were going to a relatively safe area… The French know no shame. I agree with Eric…if we are to follow the French, we must be prepared to suffer the stench of having their arrogant aXXes in front of us.

  3. Tygrrr,

    You missed a very significant reason for the French lead in all this – they have a large North African population who aren’t doing very well these days, along with a hefty dependence on North African resources.

    Sarkozy is doing what any French president would do here. Libya is strategically imporant to France.

    We, Americans, Obama, have no such problem. Libya is not a a serious national interest.

    Just the same, we liberals only really agree on this: if we can do something to help the rebels over there, and do it very carefully, and take advantage of the fact that other powers have more pressing interests there than we, then we should do whatever we can.

    That’s what liberals think, Tygrrrr. Period.

    You want to compare this to Iraq? Wanna compare the ratio of American involvement to anyone other’s in Iraq with what we’re doing thus far in Libya? Fuggedaboutit.

    You missed another point too – What Obama is doing is much more like what Reagan or Bush Sr. would have done, as opposed to the psychotic Bush Jr. administration.


  4. Eagle,

    (Long time man, how you been???)

    Some of what you said is very funny (kind of scary) and I do relate (I’ve been around the French), but do remember, when the French really want something, they get it. I say give them a chance. I know we’re different from them, and I know they think we’re the retarded little brothers of the British, but the French have done many great things through history. Again, I say give them a chance. If I was Obama, I’d get close with Sarkozy on this one.

    I could be terribly mistaken though…


  5. Eagle 6 says:

    Jersey, Appreciate the note. Have been extremely busy preparing for life as a civilian – I turn into a pumpkin at the end of this month. When I first got back this last time, I told my wife I had a sweet job offer upon retirement back in Afghanistan. She said, “This is it. You are never deploying again.” After being home for a couple months, she asked, “How much does that job pay again?”

    yes, making a sweeping generalization about a group of people isn’t fair, but they make it easy!

  6. Micky 2 says:

    “as opposed to the psychotic Bush Jr. administration.”

    You need an imagination, to start with.
    The hypocrisy coming from Barry on this far outweighs anything you construe as psychotic.
    At least he knew what the point was behind Afghanistan and Iraq BEFORE he went in, followed protocol etc..Instead of kissin French a$$.
    No one knows what they’re doing and You call Bush psychotic ?


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.