The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Triumph of Raaaaacism: Liberals Get in Touch With Their Inner Teabagger

Posted on | March 21, 2011 | 24 Comments

First it was Michael Moore and now they’re all piling on. Ralph Nader says Obama should be impeached for war crimes, Josh Marshall says the president’s Libya policy is “a mess, poorly conceived, ginned up by folks with their own weird agendas,” and Andrew Sullivan . . .

Well, frankly, I’m beginning to feel a twinge of sympathy for Sully. Look at how all these smug people are cruelly mocking him:

You were played. I told you so at the time. The whole hope-and-change thing was an obvious con, and you were among the rubes who fell for it anyway. And yeah, I’m rubbing it in.

Sully’s perplexed and depressed and is clearly in desperate need of something to cheer him up.

Nothing would make Andrew Sullivan happier than to have a Bible-thumping Texas Republican back in the White House, so he could hate the American president without guilt or shame.

Instead, he’s stuck trying to claim that Obama has been duped into war by John McCain and Hillary Clinton:

I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don’t know the consequences, it’s been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong? . . .
I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. . . . [T]his no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept.
Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go. . . . Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess.

How long before Sully starts in — “just asking questions” — demanding to see Obama’s long-form birth certificate?

UPDATE: Linked by Da Tech Guy, who points out that Sully’s turn against Bush was manifestly motivated by (ahem) domestic issues. Da Tech Guy also links to Dan Riehl’s reminder of Sully’s October 2008 “Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote for Obama,” a chuckle-strewn stroll down schadenfreude lane.

UPDATE II: The sad thing is that Obama tried so hard to give liberals the kind of designer-boutique war that they always said they were willing to support:

In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

For decades, the overarching foreign-policy strategy of Democrats has been to hamstring the U.S. military with so many diplomatic preconditions and political restraints that our troops could not possibly win any war worth winning.

So when Democrats are in charge, the U.S. only engages in military actions that aren’t worth winning and which do not serve our national interests — e.g., Wesley Clark’s bombing campaign against Serbia, which alienated Russia while emboldening the Islamic terrorists of the KLA. When Republicans are in charge, and the military actually tries to, y’know, win an important war, Democrats cheer for the foreigners who are trying to kill our troops.

UPDATE III: Linked by Cold Fury: “Y’all better get those giant puppet heads out of storage toot damned suite. The whole world is watching, you precious, hypocritical twits.”

UPDATE IV: Welcome, Instapundit readers!


Comments are closed.