The Lefty Loons are out and will be out in the scores today, tomorrow, and in the following days and weeks smiling, laughing, and generally ecstatic over Obama's success in Libya.
There are several facts we conveniently 'forget', but then again, intellectual honesty is not trademarked by any ideology -
The US did not want to be involved and we resisted, even after the UN voted for a no-fly zone. A curious thing that UN vote. How do they go from a no-fly zone to supporting regime change? A better question - how does the UN and US go from a no-fly zone to regime change? Wasn't regime change bad in Iraq where a madman was not so mad, but in Libya where the bad man was never bad, just an annoyance - not like Kim or Amindinejad or Hussain. Bad unless its good.
So the US resisted and France took the lead. The US waited. France and Germany and England pressed ahead and the US waited. Only when Europe made the US look weak and wilted did Obama step in and when he did he said our involvement would be 'hours' not 'days, or weeks' and when we enjoined the fight he again told us it was hours and days not weeks and months. Over and over we heard that mantra. Almost as often as we heard 'Get over it, we won'.
And now, many many months later, hundreds of millions and several billions later, we come to an end.
And so we return to the cry of the left - how successful it has been. The fact Obama sent in US special forces (against the law), spent billions on a war not supported or agreed to by congress (the only arm able to authorize war as we were told during the Iraq and Afghanistan action). Liberals repeated the mantra that Bush was operating by fiat in waging war (despite the fact that from 2006 through 2008, a Democratic congress authorized the wars) unlike Obama (to be honest the Constitution does authorize the president to send troops into an action for a specified period of time, after which he must receive Congressional authorization to continue with the conflict).
So the left is ecstatic. I am sure Jeanne Garofalo is in an orgasmic state - waiting for the sweets to be passed out on the streets of a now Democratic Libya. Keith Obermann will probably look very seriously into the camera and give his top ten list with Libya being on the success side of the equation for Obama. Liberals are usually driven by emotion and somewhat unstable (while on the other side Retardicans are simply incapable of tying a shoelace without instructions).
I hate to interrupt their orgasmic orgy of joy, but I don't see or read much 'democracy' ...
August 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm
The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.
As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.
Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.
But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.