The deceit of a warmonger

Since liberals rabidly denounced Bush's false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you'd think they'd at least notice Obama's false claims that our intervention in Libya is only to provide humanitarian relief, not to take sides in a civil war. But I guess you get a free pass to warmonger if you have a (D) after your name or have a Nobel Peace Prize on your resume.

Too bad liberals are more likely to get their panties in a twist about the inane rantings of trivial people like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin than anything that actually matters. And they are mystified why the regressive conservative agenda is advancing so fast.

The wisdom of Twitter

It's amusing that it's okay to say "war on drugs" and "war on poverty" but once the military is involved it sure can't be a war. -@Diraccone

Obama (secretly) deepens US involvement in Libyan civil war

According to Reuters, Pres. Obama has signed a ‘secret order’ authorizing covert US support for the rebels in Libya.

Nice move by the man who promised the most transparent administration in American history. So he breaks his promise on transparency (yet again) but his people aren't even competent enough to keep it secret.

Then again, this was also the same man who said the US attacks in Libya were solely to impose a no-fly zone and protect civilians and implement the UN mandate, not to take sides in the Libyan civil war.

Apparently, he'll say whatever he thinks will make neutered liberals feel warm and fuzzy.

Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is not one of those. He asked why the president had time to consult with the international community before launching attacks on Libya but not the US Congress.

Incidentally, the folly of liberals supporting humanitarian interventionism (as I once did) is that it’s based on the premise that militaries can be primarily governed by humanitarian interests. It’s not their raison d’etre nor can it ever be.