It’s been oodles of fun watching the liberal media bend over backwards in spectacular feats of contortion to try and justify Obama’s war on Libya. As Howard Kurtz adroitly pointed out on Reliable Sources last week, there’s been little or no skepticism from outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post, which had no problems deriding Bush as a warmonger and a unilateral interventionist.
It’s the “unilateral” part, apparently, that makes Bush a bastard and Obama a peacekeeper, for the far-left. The fact that we weren’t the first or only country to impose military action on Libya, somehow makes this whole thing a lot more pleasant for everyone. In fact Obama’s shoring up praise from all corners of the country, on the left and the right, for building a coalition. It was important, they say, for Obama to get the permission of the Arab League before calling for a No Fly Zone. And it was important, they say, for Obama to have the support of the UN before enforcing that No Fly Zone. And it was important, they say, that our allies, like France and Britain and the Danes and the Italians, share in the responsibility and the burden of Libya, so we don’t look like warmongering a-holes circa 2003.
Um…why, exactly? Who is it we’re trying to impress here? Who is this diplomatic detente performance meant for? It’s not like our enemies — say, Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad — are going to say: “Obama got permission from the Arab League? Splendid! Have him over for tea.” Maybe we’re trying to impress Europe, that ever-so-snobby collection of socialists who are constantly referring to us as “white trash.” Well, sorry, Europe got to Libya first. So I’m not too sure Sarkozy is going to be wowed by our riding into Tripoli on his coattails. Maybe we’re trying to curry favor with the Libyan rebel insurgents, in case they take over for Gadaffi eventually. Well, first of all, fat chance. Mark my words, Gadaffi will be back. And he’ll be back as a baller. Those insurgents are going to be imprisoned and killed because we came to the party a month late. Second of all, on the off chance that somehow we “mistakenly” hit Gadaffi (because we’re not trying) and the insurgents are brought to power in Libya…we don’t know anything about them. Who are these guys? They’re not organized, they’re not political, they aren’t communicating with any country that has a military presence in Libya, because they barely have enough radios to communicate with each other. But for all we know they could assume power and go right back to hating us, as per usual.
So bravo, President Obama, for kinda, sorta, a little, building a coalition of wingmen to give you cover, boost your ego, pat you on the back and make you feel okay about yourself for invading Libya. To be clear, I have no problem with our presence there, I only wish it came sooner and with an armored tank division on the ground. But I cannot commend the president for sucking up to the world’s biggest bullies and goody-two-shoes when we had a moral imperative to save Libya from genocide from the get-go. Nor can I pretend that Obama’s insertion of the United States into the Libya situation is somehow more ethical or more defensible than Bush’s deposing of Saddam or his war on terror. The world’s a nasty place, folks. And we should take every single opportunity we can to get rid of murderous dictators, regardless of how it makes us look to the rest of the world, most of which hates us anyway. I thought that with Obama in the White House, we weren’t going to worry about how we’re perceived around the world now? Wasn’t that supposed to be taken care of?
Apparently appearances still matter to the American political classes, Obama or not. Hate to burst your bubble folks and ruin the suspense for you, but we’re going to be blamed for Libya no matter what. The Arab League, the UN, France…all in the clear, trust me. You’ll see, we jumped through diplomatic hoops for nothing.
You can watch the S.E. Cupp Show every weekday from 1-2pm EST on Insider Extreme.