Winning From Behind

Libya, Gadhafi. Iraq, Saddam. Two dastardly dictators toppled. One covertly, the other overtly.  Obama and Bush. The right-wing is mad as hell that Gadhafi was taken down by President Obama’s slick cooperation with NATO- allowing NATO to run the attacks that led to the toppling of the dictator.  The right-wing cannot stomach these types of victories, especially after the killing of bin Laden under Obama’s watch.

They were highly critical of the president all throughout this campaign, first for getting involved there and then for not leading the assault on Libya and then for spending our tax dollars on such ‘an insignificant’ target. Grumpf! They like to bitch and complain, but have few positive ideas about most things.

I think that they are so bitter over this because their man, GW Bush, botched his attempt to get rid of his ‘evil’ dictator. Not only did he botch the Saddam affair, but he failed to kill or capture bin Laden. The black man did it! GW Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq set a precedent in American war history; never before had our nation attacked first. This act will remain a blemish on our nation’s history for years . And it was botched.  Completely mismanaged and highly propagandized- even lying to The People about the ‘imminent danger’ that this two-bit dictator posed for our nation.

The right-wing bitched about the wasted tax dollars spent on Libya, counting up to a billion. Pocket change, of course, when compared with Iraq. And not a single American military man or woman injured or dead. Not one! And the U.S. did this as an integral part of a well-established union of member states, NATO.  Compare that with the rag-tag of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ – nations that most Americans never even knew existed.

The hate for President Obama among the right-wing is monstrous. Of course, primarily, it is his skin color. Yet, I suspect that a deeper hate lies in the fact that they see this president doing all of the things that they hoped GW Bush would have done during his presidency. I suspect, in my Psychology 101, that many of them never left their adolescent stage of personality development and are therefore stuck in that awful place that we fully-mature adults gladly left behind long ago. The result is that, like a teen, they often cannot move forward and rise above the fray; they remain mired in that highly-charged, irrational mental state so common in the teen years.

When I visit right-wing blogs ‘teen-talk’ is quite common.  Machismo boils over.  I was challenged to a pistol duel just yesterday. A few days ago, one of them demanded  my address so that he could ‘teach me a few lessons, personally.’ I have no knowledge whether the adolescence that I have observed on the dozen or so right-wing blogs I have sampled is common throughout the country, but I suspect that it is. I am sure, however, that the hate for President Obama is a common thread, not only for his race, but for being all that GW Bush was not.

‘Winning from behind’ is a paraphrase of the right-wing slur, ‘leading from behind’, a common phrase in the right-wing, meant to degrade Obama’s leadership. Now that Gadhafi is gone, you might expect the right-wing to eat crow.  Don’t hold your breath because, like adolescents, they never want to ‘lose.’  I’ll be reporting their sour grapes as the days after Gadhafi roll on.


15 thoughts on “Winning From Behind

  1. I have lots of things to criticize Obama about, but the fact of the matter is that he has been FAR more successful in combatting America’s enemies abroad tha were DICK Cheney, W, or Donald Rumsfeld combined. BIN LADEN IS DEAD; MUBARAK AND GADAFFI HAVE BOTH BEEN DEPOSED. That says it all. Apparently, if one doesn’t come charging out full of brash cowboy swagger, with both guns blazing all the time, conservative Republicans call you weak and ineffective. Well, “sticks and stones”, Republicans—you are all FOOLS!

    1. That image of the brash cowboy with guns blazing surely fits the right-wing ideology perfectly! But then, most of them are stuck in the past when the West was wild and the colored knew their place.

      I’ve invited the entire gaggle of sparkler-heads from Tenth’s Blog to review this post and engage me in some criticism of the points that I made. Do I suspect that any of them will take up the challenge? NO, of course not.

      Microdot asked, on JOB’s blog, that the two right-wing critics who challenged the French health care system to give suggestions on how to fix the American health care system. Great silence broke out.

      I’ve though of a good metaphor for describing this right-wing tactic- sparkler-head. You know how shocking a sparkler is for brief few seconds. Yet in the end, one is left holding a charred piece of wire.

      I found this criticism of Obama’s Libyan strategy written by a former regular commenter here, Sepp: “10 excuses that will allow liberals to feel good about Obama’s Libyan bombing campaign”.

      There you go. Another sparkler-head.

    2. Do you guys ever check anything out before you post? Wonderful job. Mubarak was an ally of the United States. He was guiding Egypt on a path that ensured the safety of Israel in the region. Egyptian soldiers supported us in the First Gulf War. They controlled the border and prevented attacks from Hamas on Israel and they prevented weapons from moving across their border into Gaza. As a result of this great success – terrorists conducted a coordinated attack through Egypt into Israel last week. Splendid statesmanship. Four decades of US-Egyptian cooperation gone – replaced by? That’s a rhetorical question – no one knows for sure yet.

      Qaddafi was neutered – particularly after he watched us take down Saddam Hussein. Qaddafi wasn’t an issue for the United States (where I assume we all live). You might wait to cheer Qaddafi’s fall until you at least see what replaces him. Please note that the only governments even remotely resembling democracies in that region are Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The first did it on their own, the second two might not last longer than our current presence in those countries. I will be properly impressed if Libya emerges as anything other than another Muslim dominated dictatorship.

      The one thing you are correct about is that Obama did allow the military to move forward and take out Bin Laden. It is hard to see him making any other decision – but making good decisions isn’t Obama’s forte.

      Yes – we are all fools – and please tell me how the world or our country is better off for nearly 3 years of Obamanation.

  2. Wow – amazing analysis. Not entirely surprising when one sees everything through the false prism of hate and racism. As one of your “right wing” antagonists it is fascinating now to compare the criticism that Obama is receiving in comparison with the invective that you all leveled at George W. Bush.

    I for one was in favor of an attack on Libya ( Though the bizarre way that it unfolded was beyond my wildest imagination. One minute it was a discussion point and then I woke up one morning and we were bombing Libya.

    Please compare the run up to the invasion of Iraq (several years) with the run up to the attack on Libya. The American people were both prepared and supportive of the action against Iraq and Congress had voted the President the authority to attack. Libya? Anyone? UN resolutions? Congressional debate? Votes? Anyone know how many Congressmen and Senators were for or against?

    While you vilify the coalition that invaded Iraq, there were real commitments from a large international coalition, some provided combat forces while others provided logistics forces and engineers. In Libya France and England used NATO to suck us in to supporting an effort against what? An enemy? Qaddafi had been cooperating with the United States and though he was as big a lunatic as many who post here – he was unhinged by the Iraq war and had indeed surrendered his nuclear program to us which was further along than we had believed. He wasn’t bothering us.

    War is not a business for amateurs and the Obama-Clinton-Powers-Rice cabal just proved it. Iraq at one point had the 4th largest army in the world equipped with the latest military hardware that Russia would provide. The United States and its allies took them down in three weeks – 3 weeks – not five months. If you are going to go to war – go to war, don’t piddle around.

    It was a costly effort to be sure, but when the dust settled we owned the ground and dictated how the transition to a government would take place. By owning the ground we recovered weaponized mustard gas, Sarin, and other means of producing and delivering weapons of mass destruction. Who owns the ground now in Libya? Who has their eyeball on the Libyan chemical and biological weapons stockpiles? Who has control of the hundreds(?) or thousands (?) of Man Portable Anti-aircraft missiles that the Russians liberally provided Qaddafi?

    I hope that Obama for the very first time in his Presidency experiences beginners luck and this Libyan adventure goes well. I hope that if for no other reason than I have to fly from time-to-time and I would like to know where all those MANPADS are.

    However before you all break your arms patting yourselves on the back – consider that Libya is where Afghanistan was in October 2001 or where Iraq was in March of 2003. This ain’t over by a long shot. We’ve handed Libya over to a group who intend to impose Shariah on the population – women will find that they were freer under Qaddafi.

    Hate and race is your stock-in-trade – this has nothing to do with melanin and everything to do with decision making. Where do you guys sit on the “War Powers Act” – or does that just come into play for Republican Presidents?

    1. Oh my, you’re right….it is that comment moderated (actually deleted) blog person who majored in actual history and now likes to rewrite it. And don’t you be callin’ him any of those nasty names he calls anyone else who challenges his B***S*** (his mother and her christian friends’ sensibilities, you know).

      If anyone thinks we’re being a little hard on this person, just check back over a few of his past antics. I could deal with him if he were truthful and respectful, but he’s not even close. If you’re ever tempted to even start to believe anything he posts, please-please research the facts!

      1. Yes, Jeff, he’s the one who shut me out of his blog because’ his very christian mother was offended by the filthy remarks’ that I was making on his blog.

        Sorry if you are laughing hysterically now Jeff.

        It’s a real hoot, isn’t it?

  3. Welcome back, Common Sense. Where have you been? Hiding in your comment-moderated blog?

    Isn’t is nice to come to a left-leaning blog and be free to post anything you wish to without having somebody ‘edit’ it or ‘delete’ it?

    We lefties like freedom, especially freedom of speech.

    1. Mud,

      You are a scream. You run around the blogosphere in your drive-by insult mode without the tiniest bit of substance. All the while begging people to come to your blog. I’ve face off with you in a half dozen blogs – but you don’t generally want to discuss issues – only insults and innuendo.

      Your third-rate psychoanalysis is crap. Further, you “lefties” have been the greatest book-burners and tyrants in world history; Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Chavez. You don’t believe in free speech – you only believe in your free speech – mine not so much.

      Okay – I’m here. Scroll up – that’s my opinion.

      1. “You don’t believe in free speech – you only believe in your free speech – mine not so much.”

        Is someone forgetting THEY are the one who moderates or deletes comments? Here in Ohio we call that censorship.

        1. Jeff,

          Are you equating my blog with your Constitutional right to free speech? Do you understand how patently absurd that is?

          Do you write letters to the editor of your local newspaper? If so, if they don’t print your letter – are they censoring your “free speech?’ Stop – think – let that sink in. No one is required to listen to you.

          If you call up the Alan Colmes show and the call screener says “that’s off the topic of today’s discussion” and hangs up on you. Is Alan “censoring” your free speech? Don’t fire off – reflect – consider thoughtfully. No one is required to provide you a pulpit.

          You see you are free to say virtually anything you want – but the rest of us are not obligated to give you a venue or audience. A blog is a “venue” and we bloggers have “audiences.” You don’t have a right to be there.

          If Mud chooses to let me post – that is his decision to make. I’ve already told him several times – if he doesn’t want me here – I won’t come back. All he has to do is say so. If he moderates my comments out – that’s fine too, I won’t come back. I don’t care and I won’t whine about it somewhere else.

          Now – my post has been up for nearly 24 hours and not one person has made a serious comment about it. I ask you once again – do you have something serious to say? If not – then it isn’t worth my time to come to this blog.

          Mud – you beg people to come here – for what purpose?

          1. When only one side of an issues is allowed to be presented that is NOT called a discussion. Here in Ohio we call it CENSURING.

            While we’re talking about imbecilic behavior, why is it that you will dish it out but cry foul when kind is returned? i.e.: You have the foulest mouth I’ve seen posting in a great while, but you constantly accuse others of the very thing although there is never any example of that offense by the person you care currently accusing.

            You majored in actual history, at a public institution, while in college, but now you reference that education when you post false history. You are definitely not of a true American mindset. And finally, most Americans are finally getting wise to the un-American activities of your Teabagger set. I guess you and your christian mother will have to go back to teabagging in private.

Comments are closed.