An Interesting Question About War on Libya

Libyan rebels with destroyed tank

Glenn Greenwald asks an interesting question (emphasis added):

[Advocates of the U.S. attack on Libya say] it’s humane and noble to topple a brutal dictator; using force is the only way to protect parts of the population from slaughter…; it’s not in America’s interests to allow a deranged despot (or his deranged sons) to control a vital oil-rich nation; and removing the tyrant will aid the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Why does that reasoning justify war in Libya but not Iraq?

Of course, this time we have an U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the war (although, curiously, the President failed to get any authorization from Congress). There is pretty good evidence that Gaddafi’s attack on Benghazi would have killed lots of rebels and civilians, and that the Allied air intervention inflicted a tactical defeat on Libyan government forces.

The rest of the situation is murky. The Libya end game is unknown, even in military terms. Air power by itself is almost never decisive on the strategic level (nuclear weapons being the exception). Many members of Congress are probably secretly relieved they didn’t have to vote on this. With the Middle East in an uproar, how will the Libya operation affect Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and other unstable countries?

And so, once again America has attacked an oil-rich Arab state. This time by order of a Democratic commander-in-chief. Whenever I encounter that cliche, “Elections have consequences,” I think I’ll ask for proof. When you look at it substantively, there is just too much bipartisanship in Washington.

UPDATE: This afternoon, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said that air strikes on urban areas have been ruled out. Which means stalemate for now, because Gaddafi’s ground forces are positioned in urban areas.

UPDATE: Rebels have pushed Gaddafi’s forces out of Ajdabiya. It’s an achievement, but it still leaves them 500 miles from Tripoli. Even before President Obama goes on TV Monday to tell us what this war is about, mission creep is starting to develop. The “no-fly zone” has already morphed into tactical air support, and the Obama administration is debating whether to send arms and other aid to the rebels. That will necessitate some kind of a ground operation. There have been reports of British special forces already in Libya.

UPDATE: Rebel advance stopped at the outskirts of Sirte by Gaddafi forces.

Without air strikes it appears the rebels are not able to make advances or even hold ground. The battle around Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace, will reveal if the rebel advance has reached its limit.

  1. #1 by brewski on March 25, 2011 - 12:24 pm

    To follow the question further:
    If the Left marched by the tens of thousands over Iraq and called for W’s impeachment, war was “illegal” blah blah blah, then why is the Left not marching now and calling for Obama’s impeachment now?

    Oh that’s right, it isn’t about facts or the law. It’s different now only because Obama is their guy.

  2. #2 by on March 25, 2011 - 12:26 pm

    The left has about all the integrity you could stuff into a happy meal sack.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 12:51 pm

    I wish I knew who “The Left” is. Anybody who’s not a Republican loyalist?

    brewski– pay attention to the news, Americans are protesting this war, even though they know it won’t do any good.

    Anti-war protesters arrested near White House

    What do you think about the Libya war? Or are you with Newt Gingrich? 😉

  4. #4 by on March 25, 2011 - 1:16 pm

    Oh c’mon Richard, it’s the LEFT OUT! Fuckin’ dummies to be blunt.

  5. #5 by on March 25, 2011 - 1:23 pm

    Ooooo, there were hundreds of protesters in a nation of 300 million. Some were arrested. Alert me when they are out on chain gangs and forced to pick up garbage.


  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 1:31 pm

    I’m not out protesting, because it doesn’t do any good unless you can make politicians fear you. But you can’t peddle generalizations about a supposed lack of integrity on “The Left.”

    Meanwhile, what about right-wingers? Suddenly they claim to believe that the same course of action they advocated as recently as last week is a horrible mistake because the Obama administration is doing it.

  7. #7 by on March 25, 2011 - 2:40 pm

    Of course they have no integrity, of intelligence. they voted for Obama in stupidity and many still support him, no integrity, no intelligence.

    They want their money as much as any corporation, just pathetic about getting it. Penny ante pathetic hypocrites squawking like chickens, which is why no one is listening to them.

    Politicians fear who will throw them out of office, and that happy meal sack has so little integral capacity, most politicians have nothing to fear from their approach.

    Right wingers play to win, and don’t care what pathetic left wing losers think, as it isn’t needed. They operate under Machiavellian principle and do so in order to win against the disarray of mental capacity incorporated with the DUMB progressive mindset.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 3:07 pm

    In 2008 it was a “change” election. People wanted to vote for change. Who were they supposed to vote for, Hillary?

    You’d have to be Bob Shrum to support President Obama now. Actually, Bob Shrum was on MSNBC this afternoon, supporting Obama.

    From your opinion of people who work for a living, I am guessing you’ve never worked in a low-ranking job. Or else just bloviating.

  9. #9 by on March 25, 2011 - 3:15 pm

    Vote for a winner, now look where their loser asses are. The dumping on that progressives is well deserved, they are a stupid lot, and just don’t get how this country is run, and will continue to be run.

    I work for a living, I just don’t have the tax payer floating my boat. Stupid is what they are, and fired is what they are going to be if they don’t get a clue. Working people pay for their benefits and salaries. I’m ready to hire just about anyone else than those who wish to whine about their current state of affairs.

    With our overall debt at 14 trillion, and some 50 trillion in future unfunded liabilities, these idiots striking and protesting should keep their mouths shut.

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 3:36 pm

    brewski has gone quiet since I asked him his opinion of the Libya war. You see, Republicans have had a hard time trying to stay on the opposite side of the issue from President Obama.

    I know, it’s tricky to be a member of an opposition party when a Democrat like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama starts doing Republican stuff. What to do? “Supporting the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war” is obviously not an option like it was in 2003.

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 3:39 pm


    You don’t think public employees get money deducted from their paychecks for benefits? You’re wrong. And they keep giving up pay increases in exchange for a few benefits, only to be told later by Faux News Channel multi-millionaires that middle-class public servants are overpaid!

  12. #12 by on March 25, 2011 - 4:05 pm

    Who? Blame it on Fox, how much more DUMB do you wish to look like?

    I should hope they would pay for some of their benefits, what do they the public is, their daddy? If they don’t like the direction the public sector renumeration is going, then get another fuckin’ job, or start a business. Public service is no longer a growth industry. Get used to it. It is being defunded.

    Middle class public servants are so much overpaid as not needed at all for the most part. Time to get a life!!

  13. #13 by on March 25, 2011 - 4:08 pm

    what do they think the public is, their daddy?

    Middle class public servants are not so much overpaid, as not needed at all for the most part. That goes for the military and all the useless crap contractors that go with it.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 4:26 pm

    Faux News is trying to compete with Comedy Central now. They wanted to condemn President Obama for not getting congressional approval for Libya, so who did they go to? Oliver North.

    Oliver North(!) Is Angry That Obama Didn’t Get Congress’ Approval On Libya

    Remember that North was the Reagan administration’s point man for aiding the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Beyond simply not authorizing the scheme, Congress had explicitly prohibited it.

  15. #15 by on March 25, 2011 - 4:48 pm

    We know that is where you have been getting your news Rich, the comedy channel. Predictable. Even Bush went to Congress for his wars. You have to go back to Reagan to complain.

    None of this matters as to who will win and who will lose. You argue from a losing position. Nobody cares about these past events. Focus on Obama violating his granted powers now, and know that this will be the focus, and he will pay a very high price because well in the context of who his detractors are, he and his supporters…are dumb.

  16. #16 by cav on March 25, 2011 - 6:18 pm

    Oliver North should be rotting in Guantonamo.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on March 25, 2011 - 6:54 pm

    I don’t watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as much as I’d like to. But snippets of their reports show up on the Web and on cable TV with great regularity. Because they call bullshit on stuff like Ollie North becoming a spokesman for congressional war powers.

    Speaker Boehner and members of Congress are the losers because they were debating how to de-fund NPR when they ought to have been deliberating on the Libya crisis.

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on March 25, 2011 - 8:29 pm

    The republicans just can’t seem to make up their minds on this Libya thing. Did Limbaugh leave town?

    “Supporting the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war” is obviously not an option like it was in 2003.

    Doesn’t that just say it all?

  19. #19 by on March 25, 2011 - 9:14 pm

    This is an undeclared war in which congress was never consulted. If anyone should be upset, it should be progressives.

    How could they deliberate Libya? Obama never consulted congress in an abrogation of the US Constitution.

    Defunding NPR is way overdue, the Fox news of the left. That taxpayers have to float.

  20. #20 by shane on March 27, 2011 - 11:02 pm

    Kinda fun watching the rethuglican chicken hawks all in a tizzy about whether they support a (not quiet) war in the middle east or bash a president for doing what they said he should.

    I am pretty sure the new talking point will be “he is just following the french lead and surrendering!”

  21. #21 by james farmer on March 28, 2011 - 1:47 am


    If you actually took the time to listen to NPR, you would realize what a totally ridiculous statement you made re “the Fox news on the left.” What pisses repugs off the most about NPR is that it is, indeed, fair and balanced for the most part.

  22. #22 by on March 28, 2011 - 6:23 am

    Fox news of the left will have to start learning what it takes to pay it’s own way. Fox news of the left, National petroleum radio with its wall mart sponsorship has about as much credibility as Fox.

    For sure they did a number on progressives carrying Obama’s water with which he used to then hose you all down. What is amusing is that you still have faith in the Fochs news of the left.

  23. #23 by cav on March 28, 2011 - 7:15 am

    Hey, Terry Gross did interview Stephen Colbert sometime in the long ago!

  24. #24 by on March 28, 2011 - 7:23 am

    Incompetents interviewing comedians and calling it news.

  25. #25 by cav on March 28, 2011 - 7:29 am

    Perhaps you got a chance to watch Lesley Stahl’s “60 Minutes” piece on corporations fleeing the US over our high tax rates? And how the contention of the corporate leaders – that the US rates are higher than any other Western nation – went unchallenged and unaddressed? The jobs these companies say are being lost when they move operations to other countries never seem to materialize in those countries. A media service, no doubt.

  26. #26 by on March 28, 2011 - 7:38 am

    Nothing to refute. If the jobs leave the allowance of this has been an entirely bipartisan affair, nobody reports that much.

  27. #27 by on March 28, 2011 - 7:44 am

    Ya’ll listening to too much NPR, or Fox, the news is purposely misleading from all sides to serve the left-right narrative that allows the further fleecing of the people. Having faith in news that is spoon fed to you, and directed at people’s wishing minds is common though debilitating. Assuage the fears of the people, nothing to see here, move along, so much like your mommy did when fears approached your child’s mind.

  28. #28 by james farmer on March 28, 2011 - 8:02 am


    Try speaking specifics rather than broad brushed criticism that really speaks nothing about nothing.

    Your gobbledygook rhetoric appears to be reaching a new level … congratulations for a great imagination.

  29. #29 by on March 28, 2011 - 8:48 am

    Guess you missed the link. James your ass is so kicked, nothing that comes out of National Petroleum Radio has any more validity than Fox. Now it’s great fun, NPR says the war is good, Fox says it’s bad, with a few disclaimers on the side. You keep being spoon fed by your favorite, the truth doesn’t care.

    NPR the Fox of the left. Thanks for playing and picking a side. It only takes no imagination to do so.

    Fact is NPR will be defunded, and you can continue to contribute to paying for the news you want to hear. It is all pap and pablum no matter the source anymore, at least out of this country.

  30. #30 by james farmer on March 28, 2011 - 9:21 am


    Again, you are tossing about wild generalities with no substance.

  31. #31 by JWC on March 28, 2011 - 2:26 pm

    You know what’s fun? Watching liberals and conservatives twist themselves into a rhetorical pretzel trying to defend or condemn the action in Libya. Iraq was a war to stabilize the region so that we could continue to pump Oil. The attack on Libya is an attempt to stabilize the region so France and other European nations can continue to pump Oil. In other words, they are the same war.

    The coalitions are nearly identical with the exception of France (oh and Germany recently pulled out of the Libya engagement) and they both had/have the blessing of the UN. On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote. On March 17, 2011, the Council adopted resolution 1973 by a vote of 10 in favor to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Russian Federation).

    The only major difference between Iraq and Libya is that Iraq had approval from Congress and all 15 members of the UN Security Council and Libya only had 10 of the 15 members and no approval from congress. Bush engaged in Diplomacy for 9 months and Obama engaged in Diplomacy for about 1 month (but in his defense Libya was clearly a time sensitive deal so I refuse to eat Obama’s lunch on that aspect). Beyond that I don’t see much of a difference besides scale, which is moot in a discussion like this.

    Of course many liberals are touting the “humanitarian” side of this war but I find that to be dishonest. First, if it was as they claim a humanitarian effort, then why wait for weeks while Gaddafi engaged in the wholesale slaughter of the rebels? From a humanitarian aspect, wouldn’t you want to go in early to minimize that? From a tactical standpoint wouldn’t you want to go in as soon as possible to save as many rebel fighters and possibly mitigating the need for western troops to set foot in another Muslim country?

    Second, if that is the sole reason for going into Libya was to save civilians then why Libya at all?

    Thousands of people are dying everyday just south of the border at the hands of ruthless drug cartels. Thousands of people have been slaughtered in the Sudan by warlords in the last few years. The list of candidates that could use our “humanitarian” intervention is long and most would arguably have a greater impact on our national security then does Libya. Especially since Gaddafi crapped his pants and gave up his nukes in the wake of the Iraq invasion. It’s one of the few positive things to come out of the Iraq War quite honestly.

    So I don’t see much difference between Bush and Obama. They have in common their support of the Patriot act, Gitmo, wars in the Middle East, cozy relationships to Big Oil and Wall Street, an astounding lack of transparency and a knack for spending money like it grows on trees. Bush=Obama and 12 years of this nonsense is enough for a lifetime.

  32. #32 by on March 28, 2011 - 3:24 pm

    There is one big difference JWC, the “rebels” we are “helping” in Libya are Jihadi’s. Though it does prove the point that the ulterior motives are always related to oil. It doesn’t matter who we’re supporting, as long as they offer a prospect of supplying the oil.

    Jim is once again trying to make a point, or trying to defend a position, it’s like watching a blind chicken scratch for corn.

  33. #33 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2011 - 4:15 pm


    U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the U.N. Secretary General said it was a violation of the United Nations Charter.

    Also Gaddafi gave up absolutely nothing in exchange for a cordial visit from Condi Rice, normalization of relations, and release of the one guy convicted for the Lockerbie bombing. He didn’t have nuclear weapons any more than Saddam did. But he got a sweet deal because President Bush was desperate to justify the illegal attack on Iraq — this bungle was portrayed on Faux News as a victory.

    “I support my darling black African woman,” [Gaddafi] said. “I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. … Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. … I love her very much. I admire her, and I’m proud of her, because she’s a black woman of African origin.”

    But you’re right, both Iraq and Libya would be of no consequence except that they are both located on top of “our” oil. And the Obama administration policies are often very hard to distinguish from Bush’s.

  34. #34 by on March 28, 2011 - 4:53 pm

    From the people who funded the Madrassas, and the rest of the “terrorists”. The crazier your enemy, or ally, the easier it is to destroy or abandon them respectively and steal whatever it they have that you want.

    “No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent self interest”.

  35. #35 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2011 - 9:08 am

    I’m shocked, shocked at the thought of CIA operatives running around in Libya. But it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship… 😉

  36. #36 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2011 - 11:09 am

    Rebel advance stopped at the outskirts of Sirte by Gaddafi forces.

    Without air strikes it appears the rebels are not able to make advances or even hold ground. The battle around Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace, will reveal if the rebel advance has reached its limit.

  37. #37 by on March 29, 2011 - 5:03 pm

    We’re all shocked and awed. Gaddaffi is a survivor, he’ll be harder to remove than anyone anticipates, which is why I claimed from the beginning, that if it goes the distance, our troops are on the ground in Libya no matter what anyone says.

    Obama is very good at making himself a liar, he won’t disappoint.

  38. #38 by james farmer on March 29, 2011 - 5:19 pm

    glenn: Your claim is like stating if the sun comes up in Arizona tomorrow, it will be hot. As to the Obama slap, get a life – big difference between lying and reality.

  39. #39 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2011 - 5:31 pm


    Yeah, Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” speech last night came just before the realization that Gaddafi is not giving up. This is a fight to the death.

    I hate to draw a comparisons because every war is different, but even supposing Gaddafi is taken out his loyalists, who are used to running the country, might decide to keep fighting like the Sunnis did in Iraq.

    NATO Chief Opens The Door to Libya Ground Troops

    [Admiral James] Stavridis argued that it’s “premature” to talk about an exit strategy for Libya. And as a way of underscoring NATO’s resolve, he reminded senators that nearly 12 years after NATO’s Kosovo air war, there are still 5000 peacekeepers in Kosovo, including 700 Americans.

  40. #40 by on March 29, 2011 - 8:29 pm

    Poor James, does not know Obama is a liar. Nuff said. As for Gaddaffi, our current liar in chief figured like bush, that it would all be over in a couple of days. What a pudding head, even after waiting a month to get off the pot. What he comes up with doesn’t work, what else is new from our leaders when it comes to war promises.

    Richard…oh yeah, you can count on it. Somewhere in the past while Obama was dithering I stated here that it was all but inevitable that we would be on the ground in Libya, no matter what Bubbles thought or said. The crazy grown ups are running this operation. This invasion has been planned for at least ten years.

  41. #41 by on March 29, 2011 - 8:36 pm

    Hey Jim, for you…Bush couldn’t even lie this well. That’s why you are a 20% er. cheers and enjoy!!

  42. #42 by james farmer on March 30, 2011 - 7:25 am

    glenn: Again, you fail to appreciate reality from lies. No need to pity me, though, just go ahead and do or say something positive today for someone, anyone if you can. Good luck. Let us know about the experience.

  43. #43 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2011 - 12:59 pm

    Jane Hamsher:

    Anyone who predicted in 2008 that Obama and Clinton would soon join hands to launch a new foray into Libya without consulting Congress would have quickly been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist and delusional crank.

    But now, it’s as if the 2008 election never happened.

  44. #44 by on March 30, 2011 - 1:36 pm

    Well you admit in your passing that you are pitiful, as there is no place I ever said such a thing. That’s sad Jim that internally you view yourself as pitiful. A sorry tell, try to keep your spirits up.

    Richard, the conspiracy theorists and cranks surely have a better record of predicting the future than those who follow pablum news.

  45. #45 by James Farmer on March 30, 2011 - 2:30 pm

    glenn: Umm. “Poor James” suggests pity; your assertion, not my admission.

    Just for once, try and say something intelligent/positive; we’ll all give you great leeway in your effort, no matter how minuscule the result or painful it may be for you.

  46. #46 by on March 30, 2011 - 3:23 pm

    It’s not pity James, you are just poor in how you view the events that occurring around you.

    Intelligence is determined by how one views events and how they actually turn out, in that regard, you and most progressives being wrong the better part of the time, are not really intelligent.

  47. #47 by James Farmer on March 30, 2011 - 5:25 pm

    And whether one is correct or incorrect also generally depends on how one views events. So, in my and many others’ minds, I guess that makes you … well … not really intelligent. But what the heck, feel free to keep on trying.

  48. #48 by on March 30, 2011 - 6:15 pm

    Self delusion in the face of the facts in a primary clue to cluelessness. The facts are Obama is a progressive disaster, and his incompetence has permanently damaged the Democrat party.

    You will have to admit the turnaround since this man was elected, is pretty unbelievable, he used progressives lack of intelligence to do enable the opposite of what he said. Dupes is the word for it.

  49. #49 by on March 30, 2011 - 8:47 pm

    Check this out James, the action is totally illegal yet on it goes. If Bush been doing this (well he really as this is his 3rd term) you would be up in arms. Why do you support Bubbles unconditionally?

    Obama signs “secret” deal to arm the rebels.

  50. #50 by brewski on March 30, 2011 - 9:34 pm,
    Don’t bother arguing with James. What he lacks in data and evidence he makes up for in arrogance. Arguing with him is like arguing with post. He seriously suggested an “alternative” to one wind farm location other locations which had already been rejected by their respective authoritative agencies. Then he gets all huffy that I don’t like what he calls “alternatives”. But that doesn’t stop him from calling other people not intelligent. If nothing else he certainly helps me confirm my feelings about the intellectual substance of liberals. He’s good for a chuckle too.

  51. #51 by James Farmer on March 31, 2011 - 12:34 pm

    brew: I again refer you to the English language (e.g., for the meaning of “alternative”), as well as the rules of Boolean logic (which I schooled you on above).

    Regardless, what I find rather humorous is you criticize me for responding to glenn in kind (i.e., referring to glenn as not really intelligent), and then you turn right around and align yourself with glenn who, 99% of the time, cannot seem to craft a comment without calling people stupid, not intelligent, incompetent, liar, and on and on. And you call others “huffy” … what a joke.

    As to the intellectual substance of liberals, ask your wife which leaning – liberal or conservative – is generally the more educated. You might be surprised. Not surprising, however, is that both you and glenn fall in the same general categories of being (a) relatively less educated than your liberal colleagues and (b) far right-wingers. Two peas in a less educated right-wing pod. Enjoy your time together, brew and glenn.

    PS. Thanks for the comment and have a nice day.

  52. #52 by on March 31, 2011 - 1:08 pm

    James this tack is in response to the only way you seemingly attempt to get a leg up, the ad hominem, and for any to see, stupid is as stupid does. The jokes on you James, the ad hominem banter is where all your arguments go once lost.

    That’s the joke James!

    By now if you cannot attribute stupidity to your favored side of the political spectrum, you can be the last to know.

    Check your brain at the door, it doesn’t help you much. Stick with parroting the progressive line that others have taught you. Squawk with righteous anger when prompted, things like that.

    As for education, it is a varied lot, and by bearing witness to the lack of vigor in your arguments, the benefits are dubious at best. We both attended the same university, as did Cliff, so you can pretend you are smart, we’ll pick up pieces when you finally give up.

    Being so defeated as a party as progressive democrats are, let me hear your explanation for this rout and who you are going to blame it on besides democrats. This should fun, though I don’t expect anything from it.

    brew, if you think James is bad here, you should suffer one of his verbal explanations in person, bring some booze, it’ll speed things up.

  53. #53 by brewski on March 31, 2011 - 1:13 pm

    I suppose under your interpetation of the English language, a glass of sand is an “alternative” to a glass of water. Sure, in some parallel universe where words have no meaning, I suppose so. But just not to the people who want a glass of water.

    I am sure my wife would say that better educated people are more conservative. I think the point you are trying to make but made badly, is that people who choose the lifestyle of academia and are government employees tend to know where their bread is buttered, so end up being Statists. So yes.

    You lose again.

  54. #54 by on March 31, 2011 - 1:17 pm

    Let’s go back to square one James…Who was it that told every progressive here what Obama would be in so many respects? Who paid the price of invective ad hominem as a steady diet from local progressives who tried to defend Obama from the reality of he was to become? A fraud.

    Let’s have you focus on foreign policy as most significant, though the domestic sellout is more breath taking than even you could imagine. Give us all the miraculous, intelligent explanations why it is someone else’s fault.

  55. #55 by on March 31, 2011 - 1:20 pm

    Excellent theater, we have thank James for imagining he is so smart to continue playing after looking so foolish on a regular basis. The state of affairs today speak for themselves about how wrong the progressive tack is not so much ethically or morally, but how the presentation plays out as the tacticians of the ideology continually blow it.

    Ok there’s bait, waiting on a big fish…waiting on a big fish.

    More theater to come.

  56. #56 by James Farmer on March 31, 2011 - 1:48 pm


    Liberals are far better educated than other groups (48% college graduates, compared with an overall average of 27%).

    As I said, two peas in a less educated, far right-wing pod. Better check your scoreboard. Oh, and before making yourself look so foolish, better check with the wife next time. PS. Look up the definition of alternative; again, you might be surprised at what you find.

    Glenn, sorry, but when you start waving the “ad hominem” defense, I really must step aside and call uncle – my time would be far more productive smashing my head against concrete than debating issues with you.

    Enjoy your time together, boys.

  57. #57 by on March 31, 2011 - 4:11 pm

    It must make you wonder how liberals are continually having their political asses kicked despite being what they imagine as better educated. Could it be that a long education just brainwashes a person and robs them of common sense? I have my degree, and claim myself as liberal, to the extent that I can argue republican points and stymie a liberla like yourself without much effort. This is why Liberals despite thinking they are smart, just aren’t.

    As my Dad used to say, the proof is in the pudding. I suggest clearing that pudding out of your head. Look around you, politics is not a game of chance, liberals have been outsmarted in about every way that exists.

    Check your posts over the years James, there is very little of substance and mostly ad hominem. This is what has been like debating you on just about any issue, which is why I quit doing it and just referred to the stupidity of comments.

  58. #58 by brewski on March 31, 2011 - 4:23 pm


    The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities.

    What you presented was not a possibility at all.

    Tea Party supporters are …. more well-educated than the general public

    New York Times

    You lose again.

  59. #59 by james farmer on March 31, 2011 - 4:41 pm


    The alternative I presented was exactly that – an alternative. Often times though out history alternatives not once seen as optimum became accepted. Your position on this subject … well … leaves me ROFLOL.

    As to your NYT cite (or lack thereof), you are joking, right? Must be.

  60. #60 by on March 31, 2011 - 6:14 pm

  61. #61 by james farmer on March 31, 2011 - 6:41 pm

    glenn: You have taken a key from brew’s ability to play shell games – good on you, but it makes you look no more intelligent than otherwise. Go back and review the previous comments and tell me just how the cite you provide is relevant. You make a great tea-bagger.

  62. #62 by on March 31, 2011 - 7:36 pm

    You are the one who claimed that Tea Party adherents have no education, just easy to prove you wrong, and fun.

  63. #63 by on March 31, 2011 - 7:46 pm

    Let’s focus on all the grand accomplishments you imagined Obama would make Jim. Why did the Tea Party win? They played the game intelligently. It is like chess Jim, no amount of education is going to make you any better at the game. You either have, or you don’t. There are children with very little education that are better gamers than any educated adult.

    That said Tea Party adherents are not what you think they are, you cannot beat them, and they are better educated lot than the children who voted for Obama, and their older less “smart” counterparts. No one can deny after witnessing what is going on from war or the economy that Obama is anything but done.

    It has been a fun house of a ride.

  64. #64 by james farmer on March 31, 2011 - 7:47 pm

    Never said anything close – shell game. Go review the comments, please, before commenting again on this topic. It pains me to see you make yourself look less intelligent than you are. Shell gamer.

  65. #65 by on March 31, 2011 - 7:59 pm

    Comments? I am simply referencing your claim and cite that Tea Party adherents are not intelligent. You made the claim over and over, here, and on other threads.

    “Liberals are far better educated than other groups (48% college graduates, compared with an overall average of 27%)” to wit the comparison with the average Tea Party adherent

    Your assumption is that the Tea Party is comprised of only republican/right wing types. See you for example are not really a progressive liberal. You respect gun rights, and a variety of other conservative approaches to life..yet you claim to vote democrat. You seem more of a Statist to me than anything else, which frankly means “follower” to me. Most of your friends are ardent liberals, and we both know that progressive liberals are often not mature enough to respect differing political views and remain friends. This is where the Tea Party has progressives dead to rights, they don’t care what you used to believe in, or what you still might as long as we can agree that government and its growth and usurpation of people’s rights is way beyond out of control.

    There are plenty of fed up liberals in the Tea Party movement, in fact it has quite a wide calling of people who support it, yet the vilification of the movement centers on the plain fact that if successful, so many people on the government gravy train are going to have to fend for themselves in open and competitive market.

  66. #66 by james farmer on March 31, 2011 - 8:24 pm

    glenn: You are in need of a primer on use of the English language. No where does the citation made in my comment and repeated by you state, as you claim, that “Tea Party adherents are not intelligent.” Your ability to shell game really knows no bound.

  67. #67 by on March 31, 2011 - 8:43 pm

    No, that is what you claim about Tea Party adherents, the cite you listed is in quotes, from your own link, and in that you are simply dodging. Not very well either.

  68. #68 by on March 31, 2011 - 8:48 pm

    Bottom line, is what has occurred and the leadership you voted for seem to have done an intelligent job in any arena you had hoped for? Education can be anything, namely it can be brainwashing, that lasts a lifetime.

    Why are people you might think are less educated than liberals so effective at determining progressive attempts to manage their lives and squashing these attempts so successfully?

    What is intelligence to you Jim? Define it for me, and then I will define what I think it is in one word.

  69. #69 by james farmer on March 31, 2011 - 11:20 pm

    I suggest a 3rd grade primer on the English language – probably help you out in all aspects of your life, too.

  70. #70 by on March 31, 2011 - 11:55 pm

    What is very funny is that brew has explained and used this retort to your inability in readign comprehension. More than once.

    More proof that you without really knowing it, are a simple follower, lacking in any original thought.

    Receptivity is the one word, and you don’t have it.

  71. #71 by james farmer on April 1, 2011 - 7:33 am

    Oh, ok, glenn. Whatever you say. Oh, and I suppose you were the very first person to suggest others are, for example, stupid, not really intelligent, liars, etc., all in relation to progressives and Obama? As with brew, your hypocrisy is really quite boundless. Still ROLMFAO.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: